Sobx.1758

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" > > A lot of the people just point out that it's not anet's fault > it not fault, if you not support technological leader this is called "fail" > I am also in future have plan buy new pro mac, and if they not support I will think - stay old pc or find new mmo > I am no only one I am sure who have plan buy new mac Apple drops support for something you've used for 8 years and you still want to use on your computer... and in response you're buying new mac instead of investing into something that doesn't cut itself off from devs. You make your own decisions here, just make sure you understand them instead of misplacing your blame.

Sounds good, but there are also some potential problems with that: 1. gliding loses its last(?) purpose 2. while using the griffon in a place with a lot of updrafts it would be pretty easy to lose the speed by "clipping" an updraft (for example VB nighttime), which isn't such a huge deal considering you'll be higher so you can dive again, but it will definitely cut on some fun factor due to breaking the rhytm/momentum To sum up: I don't know :D

> @"NotTooFoolish.7412" said: > @"The Greyhawk.9107" > The toxicity I'm referring to is not related to the Mac users leaving but the people staying and using the opportunity to offend those who will be cut off from the game in Feb (not really cut off, but asked to jump through some hoops). It's really sad that given the current state of the world all we do is flame each other in forums. Not everyone is that kind of the player but as a frequent raider I can say that there are plenty running around in GW2. > > The game is great for non-subscription based MMORPG, but the community nowadays... ugh :'( A lot of the people just point out that it's not anet's fault, but something that apple did. You wrote it yourself. I think that's pretty far from somehow using the situation to offend mac users and subsequentially claiming that community is becoming more toxic.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > In what way did I lie about what happens in the video? can you quote the "lie"? Mhmm... > > > > > > > > Already did, but you were too busy spamming with "smoking crack". > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1399765/#Comment_1399765 > > > > > > > > >I responded to the thread to respond to Jasai's post when they said: > > > > > > > > lmao, you have some serious problems with keeping up with the context of messages you're answering to. You were not answering to Jasai(?) there (which I also already told you on this or last page). > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1396596/#Comment_1396596 > > > > > > > > Maybe you really aren't *intentionally* dodging what I write, maybe you actually don't understand what you read, who knows. > > > > > > > > > > > > >My video is wvw gameplay you seem to want to pretend that thief is unused in wvw and lacks reset potential. > > > > > > > > ...and when **exactly** did I write anything like that? :D > > > > > > Maybe u linked the wrong comments? cause no those links dont demonstrate what u claim as usual... > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1396689#Comment_1396689 > > > > And where did I answer to that post? Check my initial answer and what you were answering to this whole time. What are you even talking about, lmao. > > > > As I said: > > *you have some serious problems with keeping up with the context of messages you're answering to.* > > *Maybe you really aren't intentionally dodging what I write, maybe you actually don't understand what you read, who knows.* > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1399991#Comment_1399991 So you understand you're wrong which is why you run from what I wrote *again*, ok. :)

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > In what way did I lie about what happens in the video? can you quote the "lie"? Mhmm... > > > > Already did, but you were too busy spamming with "smoking crack". > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1399765/#Comment_1399765 > > > > >I responded to the thread to respond to Jasai's post when they said: > > > > lmao, you have some serious problems with keeping up with the context of messages you're answering to. You were not answering to Jasai(?) there (which I also already told you on this or last page). > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1396596/#Comment_1396596 > > > > Maybe you really aren't *intentionally* dodging what I write, maybe you actually don't understand what you read, who knows. > > > > > > >My video is wvw gameplay you seem to want to pretend that thief is unused in wvw and lacks reset potential. > > > > ...and when **exactly** did I write anything like that? :D > > Maybe u linked the wrong comments? cause no those links dont demonstrate what u claim as usual... > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1396689#Comment_1396689 And where did I answer to that post? Check my initial answer and what you were answering to this whole time. What are you even talking about, lmao. As I said: *you have some serious problems with keeping up with the context of messages you're answering to.* *Maybe you really aren't intentionally dodging what I write, maybe you actually don't understand what you read, who knows.*

No, it's not. And it's apple that "drops you" (and devs), not anet. ______________ [this comment doesn't make much sense now, as it was referencing the title of ["**Dropping Mac is Ultimately the Beginning of the End**"](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1401302/#Comment_1401302) thread, now merged with this one]

> @"BnooMaGoo.5690" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"BnooMaGoo.5690" said: > > > I've been playing for almost 6 years. > > > I can continue possibly if I go through Nvidia meaning I can play one hour a day for free or I can pay another amount to buy a membership. > > > Not sure what I will be doing. > > > You can blame Apple & there might me some truth to it but that's between the businesses. > > > Where does it leave the player? > > > > > > Koda the judge & kodan the jury > > . > > > Yes I could use Bluestacks or some other windows emulator. > > > But that seems counter-productive. > > > It's like how bad do you want to play, customer? > > > Not my idea of customer service/player support but I have a few decades of life before the internet & video games. > > > Thanks for the tips. > > > > Just curious... have you made a similar complaint/thread on apple's forum > > Just curious... why did you respond to this? > Apple's forum? > Which one? > Are you going to suggest buying a pc next? > This isn't about whether pcs are better than Apple despite any attempts to guide the conversation there. Did I say anything about apple vs pcs here? I'm asking why are you trying to make anet responsible for anything when all they did was respond to the actions of apple. Like... "I can continue possibly if I go through Nvidia meaning I can play one hour a day for free or I can pay another amount to buy a membership." -how is this anet's problem/fault? Tell that to the company that made your hardware and stopped supporting *whatever* again when you're still willing to use it. "Yes I could use Bluestacks or some other windows emulator. But that seems counter-productive." -again, why is this anet's responsibility that you don't want to go through more steps? It's apple creating inconveniences here, not anet, right? "It's like how bad do you want to play, customer?" -said apple when they stopped supporting *whatever* again? I mean you could play gw2 on mac, anet didn't try to bait you into buying pc by telling you "you bought mac? we don't want you!". It's apple that pulled the support and develepment of resources that gw2 used for 8 years now. ...right? I'm not "trying to make it about pc vs mac", I'm trying to tell you that you're trying to guilt a company that's not even the main source of your unhappiness. And that's exactly why I've responded to this. Hope I satisfied your curiosity as much as you satisfied mine (because despite not directly answering to my question, it's clear you didn't complain to apple about this). > It's about ArenaNet choosing not to support a platform going forward period. Nope, it should be about apple suddenly not supporting what anet was using for 8 years, "period".

Does corsair have its own software that lets you rebind the keys? If it does, change your side keys to a combination of keys (for example shift+x, shift+ctrl+x etc) or to normally hard to reach/unused keys and then bind that combination/key ingame to the skill you want to use.

> @"anduriell.6280" said: > > @"Pepsi.3610" said: > > Hello everyone, > > For xmas I decided to buy a new gaming laptop: Asus Rog Strix G15 with GPU RTX2060, and CPU i7 10th generation, I mean, a really great PC for its specs. > > > Just sharing my experiences : > * laptops are a pretty weak machines when we talk about CPUs, because of power consumption and thermals. Depends, from what I know G17s are holding up pretty well with thermals, but miiiiight be worse with a smaller ones. Doubt that it'd be worse to the point of "lagging" though. > * I7 2.6ghz is slow in comparison to what you get in a PC. The 5ghz hyperboost will not be noticeable for games. Ina desktop I run 5.2ghz in all cores stable in a i7 9th generation. I have seen 10th gen reach 5.6ghz stable. This is more than enough to run gw2 smoothly. Well... at least for the gw2 standards. It really shouldn't be "lagging" based on his specs. And I'm even more confident of that when OP says he tried with max performance settings. > * laptop 2060rtx is a 20% slower by design than the desktop counterpart which is not good to start with. Also ASUS is known to under clock their machines to keep the thermals down. ...pretty sure they let you overclock it **with their own software** (but at the same time they obviously tell you they're not responsible for you manually overclocking your device), so I doubt in what you've just said. But if it really is what they're doing, then they also let you easly undo it. > TLDR: a “gaming laptop” is not a gaming pc, its overpriced computer you use when you cant play on a desktop because travelling, so don't expect an amazing performance. Claiming that a laptop with those specs shouldn't be expected to run gw2 smoothly even when he says he tried lowering the settings "just because it's laptop and not gaming pc" is just false. And OP said he runs other games without that problem. Overally most of what you've wrote here is false or -at the very least- by far isn't a rule. ______________ OP, make sure you have your drivers updated (because yes, those **can** cause connection problems in just **some** of the games you play). Also it's possible that the problem isn't on your end: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/120062/lag-dc-problem#latest You say it didn't happen on your old pc. Have you tried launching the game on the new laptop and then right after on the older pc to compare the connectivity at nearly the same time?

> @"BnooMaGoo.5690" said: > I've been playing for almost 6 years. > I can continue possibly if I go through Nvidia meaning I can play one hour a day for free or I can pay another amount to buy a membership. > Not sure what I will be doing. > You can blame Apple & there might me some truth to it but that's between the businesses. > Where does it leave the player? > > Koda the judge & kodan the jury . > Yes I could use Bluestacks or some other windows emulator. > But that seems counter-productive. > It's like how bad do you want to play, customer? > Not my idea of customer service/player support but I have a few decades of life before the internet & video games. > Thanks for the tips. Just curious... have you made a similar complaint/thread on apple's forum?

> @"anduriell.6280" said: > > @"Touchme.1097" said: > > Dear ArenaNet, please consider writing an official guide on how to allow MAC users to play GW2 in order to give players at least the chance to enjoy the game they paid for. Nobody is going to refund me my 80 Euros I have spent for the ultimate bundle 4 months ago and I don't think it's reasonable that someone has to spend all that money to see the game client sink all of a sudden. > It took me 3 seconds in google... > https://support.apple.com/es-es/HT201468 > > After install GW2 and play happily ever after. I don't think is Anet position to teach you how to use your computer. True, it's kind of weird that people feel the need to blame and ask anet for these things instead of apple.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > In what way did I lie about what happens in the video? can you quote the "lie"? Mhmm... Already did, but you were too busy spamming with "smoking crack". https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1399765/#Comment_1399765 >I responded to the thread to respond to Jasai's post when they said: lmao, you have some serious problems with keeping up with the context of messages you're answering to. You were not answering to Jasai(?) there (which I also already told you on this or last page). https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1396596/#Comment_1396596 Maybe you really aren't *intentionally* dodging what I write, maybe you actually don't understand what you read, who knows. >My video is wvw gameplay you seem to want to pretend that thief is unused in wvw and lacks reset potential. ...and when **exactly** did I write anything like that? :D

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > Happy informed gaming then :lol: > > > > "having worked in IT on windows" just says nothing about your expertise btw. You could as well sit in an office and be "the guy to connect the cables, install software and restart pc to fix a bug" and it would still mean you "have worked in IT on windows". > > > > ...and it's almost as if that "stability" is something you gain by apple closing itself off from others, which is a direct cause of... well, threads like this one. Stability by ~~exclusivity~~ non-inclusivity, waow. > > Yup, that description cold be applied to my minimalist statement, but it is not applicable to me nor my actual experience. I could post my resume to back that up, but I doubt anyone would care anyway. No worries, that's not what I'm asking for -I'm just saying that what you described as your -lets say- vague credentials to give more meaning to your words meant nothing. >I do not disagree that Apple has made its own decisions that have directly contributed to this situation being what it is. That does not change the fact that the OS is more stable than Windows. Cool, you were talking about having an informed position, so I clarified that what you said as an undeniable proof of superiority of mac systems (or whatever you tried to do by writing what you wrote, I can't read minds) from the position of the long-time windows IT worker is largly what gets it in the situations like this, which at the same time is one of the reasons it's not being chosen *by informed people knowing what they want to do with their devices*.

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said: > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > Wow, Apple really hates its users doesn't it? > > I mean, just by the way of making it super hard for developers to do anything without them looking over it like a fussy mother. > > And now they're closing their systems even more which means, soon, you won't be able to do anything on a MAC that didn't come out of Apple directly. > > > > Why people continue to support Apple is beyond me... > > Because it is flat out a more stable and superior operating system. And yes I say that from an informed position of having worked in IT on Windows for well over a decade. Happy informed gaming then :lol: "having worked in IT on windows" just says nothing about your expertise btw. You could as well sit in an office and be "the guy to connect the cables, install software and restart pc to fix a bug" and it would still mean you "have worked in IT on windows". ...and it's almost as if that "stability" is something you gain by apple closing itself off from others, which is a direct cause of... well, threads like this one. Stability by ~~exclusivity~~ non-inclusivity, waow.

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: > No, one random potion. I spent 5 keys and am storing 2 potions until I can use them. Oh. So I'm not changing my mind I guess ^^

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"lightstalker.1498" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see YOU, the one complaining about thief, show casing how thief is OP, and can we see last 10 games played on thief screenshot with at or above 50% win rate? It is a sad state of affairs when devs balance the game around streamers. Some really do nothing else, and I would hope that means they are good at the game, if you get my drift. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure here is a video I made recently. exactly 10 minutes into the video I ambushed by an high rank d/p thief. Although I did defeat the thief in both fights, I think its pretty clear that the thief lost almost by choice. What I mean is, the thief is able to reset over and over trying to get a burst. At the same time, on Mirage my clones run around and almost never actually make contact. The actual kill on the thief is very short using confusion, which is NOT easy. Most of the time these fights go to the thief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly 10 minutes into the video my fight with a d/p DD starts. The clip right after is the DDs 2nd attempt which also fails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I can consistently win against thieves if they decide to fight me, but if they decide to fight me then it's automatically losing *by choice*. Class broken because it can run away". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this what you've just said? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously not. Your statement smells like troll bait. =) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In what way what you said doesn't mean what I said? Explain what you meant then. You were supposed to show thief being op [while playing it], but all you did was link to a vid [from a different mode btw] where you win against thief twice and then claimed "thief lost by choice". Apparently that "choice" being "actually fighting". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thief for SURE lost by choice. My post talking about that is VERY clear. You are obviously looking for an agument and hoping to miss represent facts to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **The thief lost by choice because in the video you can literally see the thief stealth and reset out of range many many times. Each time the thief has the option to leave the fight** if it ever felt it might lose or was in a losing match-up. Therefore, as I said before the thief was arguably being lazy and assuming it would get the kill because its probably used to face-rolling over Mesmer and others. In other words, the thief CHOSE to ambush me and had multiple chances to leave the fight and live if it ever thought it was in a losing fight. So obviously it thought it was in a winning fight and was wrong. That means it was 100% the thief's choice/mistake all the way from start to finish. Its extremely clear and not even really debatable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...so you think he "lost by choice because he didn't run away". Not sure why you've tried calling me a troll and then repeated what I said (and what you said before). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You try to say "the thief thought he was in a winning fight" based on what exactly? Based on the fact that he didn't "run away for good," despite needing to disengage multiple times to not die earlier? That's hilarious. Absolutely make sure to tell me where that conclusion came from. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the fact that whenever he disengaged and re-engaged, you also had the time to heal up is somehow irrelvant here? It's almost as if he taking his time also give you time to do whatever you want to do and helped you stand your ground. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say that "he's used to face-rolling over mesmer and others", but somehow he didn't faceroll you? Why exactly? Why is the thief using stealth or running unfair, but you utilizing your mechanic and standing between your clones is perfectly fine? Running isn't winning, not even close. Even moreso in pvp gamemode btw. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really make no sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At which part exactly? (inb4 "all of it" which is not a valid answer, but just an effort to escape facts you don't like :( ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was standing still typing in chat, thief stealth attacks me and stealth again so quick that clones cannot reach thief. the thief keeps stealthing and attacking a mostly stationary target (me) who didn't instigate the attack or chase the thief. Repeatedly the clones cannot even hit the thief because it can restealth so fast after attacks that Mirage (me) almost cannot hit the thief. The thief does significant damage to my Trailblazer Mirage. The thief can reset over and over. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "stealths and attack a mostly stationary target who didn't instigate the attack"? "repeatedly the clones cannot even hit the thief?" "significant dmg"? You were at 16k+ hp for vast majority of that fight. > > > > > > > > > > It's pretty funny because your description here is just a plain lie, maybe you should rewatch your own video before trying to talk back? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10:02 -start of the fight, thief deals 7k of free dmg because -just like you said- you stand in the middle of wvw and type (not sure how that's supposed to play into you trying to show thief is op, but ok :lol: ) > > > > > > > > > > 10:22 -you're already at about the same hp %. Thief stealths, but still takes some condi dmg, now he's at lower hp % (and just flat lower hp, but that was true since the start of the fight, so w/e) than you are. Good job achieving that while claiming the thief is impossible to hit I guess? > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just standing behind the clones, waiting for the thief to appear/re-engage. Which he does and so he takes more dmg going from 60%+ hp to 20%. All that not exactly by you somehow outplaying him or presenting some hightened gamesense with *exceptional mouse-skill-clicking reflexes*, but mostly by standing near your clones (which, as you claim, can't even hit the thief -must be magic). > > > > > > > > > > Thief burns heal and stealths, because he already almost died, while you're still at >16k hp. The fight resets for both of you and at this point... so much for your "he thought he'll easly win theory, when he pretty much already lost once and had to run away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he re-engages again, tries to burst you, he can't, you stand by the clones, yaddayaddayadda, same story as before, goes down to **11%** hp, while you're still at **13k**. At this point he disengages again, but you actually even get out of combat first to heal back to full hp when he's still at below 40%. Now YOU engage him, he barely touches you and dies because you're clearly some kind of skill-clicking condi mirage god or something xd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >What kinda stuff are you smoking? I might like some too! Blather on all u like though about thief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aww buddy -pretty clearly if anyone's "smoking something" here, it's not me. Keep making your own reality despite the video you've posted by yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you said, I pointed out and then *you confirmed again*: the thief *"lost by choice"*, because he *chose* to participate in a fight while in wvw instead of running away and pveing camps I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when I go from like 24k to 16k each attack, thats not significant damage? smoke some more crack. BTW I could really give a kitten about this thief if your problem. I just posted a video as an example of thieves high reset potential. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are just a bitter player looking to attack someone to make yourself feel better. As I said before. Keep it up you may just find you bring yet, MORE unwanted attention from Anet about thief balance and get yet more nerfs. (none of which I asked for or suggested) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go smoke a little more crack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buddy, stop spamming with "woah you smoke crack!" when you don't have anything of value to respond with. > > > > > > > > Take a few deeper breaths, re-read what I wrote (while you're at it, maybe even re-read your own post I was answering to, just to make sure I am actually responding to what you said, which I do) and answer with something relevant. If you want to randomize insults, look somewhere else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're the one person in this thread that keeps constantly insulting others instead of answering to the contents of their msgs in at least last few of your posts -so much for being "*a bitter player looking to attack someone to make yourself feel better*". For real, re-read last few posts and take a good look at yourself in light of what you just wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a list of the reasons you are wrong in list form to make it simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > Great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) thief is MUCH higher rank > > > > > > > > > > > > Rank is mostly irrelevant and can be farmed by running in zergs and spamming aoes. WvW rank isn't an equivalent of some sort of literal "ranked ladder". We're discussing certain mechanics and classes, in this case based on a specific situation from the video you've posted. Respond accordingly, instead of taking shortcuts by claiming rank is a factor here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) thief keeps resetting out of my combat range > > > > > > > 2a if I chase I use up my only mobility which is also one of 2 stun breaks. > > > > > > > 2b At this point the thief is free to find a new target or wait for another attack opportunity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then... don't chase. What's the problem here? Thief uses resources to run and then uses resources to go in if you're not playing like thief wants you to play. You stood your ground and he didn't do much. Then YOU engaged when you went OOC before the thief and were able to kill him. So what's the problem? That you can't just blindly chase someone without thinking? Being able to stand your ground instead of running away is even more relevant if we' remember we're in pvp mode subforum. > > > > > > Once again, "running away" is far from winning. And willingness to fight 1v1 is far from "losing by choice". > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) the thief does enough damage to kill me given the chance which is why its attacking. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what this point is supposed to be responding to. We saw he wasn't able to kill you despite getting initial free shots due to you literally standing in the middle of wvw and typing. "The class does enough dmg to have a chance of winning" -well it sure better *have a chance* or what's the point here? It's still not an equivalent of you claiming "he was sure to have an easy kill", which most probably wasn't the case judging how the fight went for an extended period of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) the thief instigated the fight from stealth ambush on a trailblazer Mirage which the thief's mistake if anyone's. > > > > > > > > > > > > So thief is so broken that he shouldn't fight your class because it's a loss? Again, I don't understand how this proves what OP asked you to prove. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) My entire damage burst on the thief was from confusion which means when the thief goes down its actually from them choosing to activate skills which leads to them taking bust level damage. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how the thief is supposed to disengage without using skills. Again, what does this point change about this situation? That you can counter the disengage? That's the opposite of your initial claims and opposite of what OP was asking for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) the point of my post was to respond to another post about thief having high reset potential in wvw to the point that people complain about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, don't try to change the facts again. [What you were answering to](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/121024/can-you-prove-with-video-thief-is-strong-not-the-pro-streamer-but-your-video/p1) was literally this thread's opening post, which you've even quoted: > > > > > > *"I would like to see YOU, the one complaining about thief, show casing how thief is OP, and can we see last 10 games played on thief screenshot with at or above 50% win rate? It is a sad state of affairs when devs balance the game around streamers. Some really do nothing else, and I would hope that means they are good at the game, if you get my drift."* > > > > > > > > > > > > To which you also wrote that: > > > > > > -"thief lost by choice" -AGAIN, apparently that "choice to lose" being not deciding to run away, which you constantly try to deny now, while also writing exactly that > > > > > > -"What I mean is, the thief is able to reset over and over trying to get a burst." -yup, he is. And that's what he does. And the result doesn't change. Which in the pvp mode just means he's not capping the point from you. *BUT HEY, that's only because I chose to have trailblazer so he can't easly burst me down!* well, duh. You picked a build and now it's hard for the thief to win with you even if he disengages multiple times. Until you have that option available in the game, I'm not sure why you're complaining. One way or another, this video showed the opposite of what OP asked for. > > > > > > -"At the same time, on Mirage my clones run around and almost never actually make contact." -that's false and I think I pointed that out sufficiently clear in the post where I gave you a little, uh, breakdown of your own replay. If the thief was not touched by your clones, he wouldn't need to constantly disengage in the first place, while in reality most of the time he had less hp than you did. > > > > > > -"Most of the time these fights go to the thief." -the thief tried dis-/re-engageing multiple times and the result was similar in every case. Play the thief and farm trailblazer mirages or something, then you'll do what OP asked for. Do you understand the difference between what was asked for and what you delivered/wrote about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) You seem to wana nit pick my input methods for skill activation rather than talk about the actual subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I totally "want to nit pick", which is why I'm responding to your posts as a whole, while you constantly dogde what I'm saying. Because your input method was clearly the main point of my posts here, ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im not going to explain everything to someone who I think is just looking for some kind of soft target. You no valid counter argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > No valid counter argument? I keep responding to what you write, I'm not sure what else you expect from a discussion -not only this, but literally any. Did I miss some crucial parts of your posts or lied about what happened in your video or about what you wrote? I don't think I did, but IF I did, then by all means make sure to point it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to want to counter the fact that thief has massive reset potential by saying, in effect, _No your wrong thief is so badly under powered it couldn't possibly kill a Mirage because the thief lost._ That isn't a counter argument to the fact that thieves high reset potential or that ultimately means the thief chose to fight and stay in the fight to the loss and had other options that would have let the thief escape the fight it started if it didnt wana be in that fight. PARTICULARLY, when you take into account Im running a built that is using CONFUSION for its burst meaning they had to activate skills to get hurt like they did..... > > > > > > > > > > > > That's by far not what I said. I said that engaging in a fight isn't *choosing to lose*. That running isn't winning (even moreso in pvp). That what you linked and wrote isn't an answer to what OP asked for. > > > > > > Yes, the thief used skills. Tell me how he was supposed to *try to disengage* without doing that. > > > > > > Also if I tried to claim that "thief is so badly underpowered it couldn't possibly kill a [whatever]", you can be sure I'd be lobbying for some teef buffs, which I'm not doing -not here and not anywhere. So that seems like a miss to me. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter what I say you will continue to whine. I find it kinda funny. > > > > > > > > Ah, so you're back to doing... this. I didn't whine, I literally responded to everything you said. I understand you're done here, so I guess I am too. Next time you respond, try actually answering to the contents of my post. > > > > > > I never left, its really easy to hit refresh see your post and say. I wouldn't want to disappoint u. ;) > > > > Never said you left, but why would I suddenly expect you to answer to what I actually wrote :D > > u just didnt like the answer. Nah, you clearly just dodged what I wrote and still do. o/

This is -probably- not relevant to this recent patch, this started happening earlier. But yes, that's an annoying bug

> @"6E62A0C6-5B30-4AA3-3147-5B6B671D0B64.9437" said: > Warclaw - my thought would be to remove the Warclaw track, make it so you just have to do the collection and that’s it. Being a late starter to GW2 and having to run around in WvW without a mount nearly put me off the game mode. When everyone has a mount and your stuck on foot trying to keep up with the group is a real bummer, the collection was fine and fun. The reward track was just like putting salt in the wound. ...how are you struggling to keep up with warclaw after they changed the masteries for it? https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warclaw#Related_world_abilities *While mounted, periodically grant nearby allies the ability to run at warclaw speed.*

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: > I assumed it would let you pick which mastery, or apply it to whichever area you are in. Instead, it gives 4 different potions. So if you aren't planning to use them, it means storing them. Ugh. Thanks. > > I only used 5 keys and unlocked two things, so it was ok. Wait, so you get all 4 of them, not randomly one out of 4? Then it's converting to 2 gold if you don't need it -if that's the case, I'm changing my mind about it, this is not bad at all for the standards of those guaranteed items.

> @"Vangalter.5210" said: >Apple's M-Series silicon is insanely good kek, ok. >I thought Universal2 was there to make it easier. 1. create a problem 2. create a "solution" by still adding steps to the process, which normally were not needed 3. "what do you mean? They made it easier!" >I mean, not really? They've been building up Swift for like half a decade and it's great for coding. Open source, too. And Catalyst helps being multiplatform. See? Again. And then you *somehow* convinced yourself this is normal to the point you still think... "Harder for devs? ...not really?" . Yes, really.

Why would you buy mac if you want to play games in the first place? Just blame yourself (or apple I guess?) for choosing a product of a company that intentionally cuts themselves away from universally used standards.

^Condi herald didn't win against something, so that something needs to get nerfed now btw :mrgreen:

> @"NaramSin.2693" said: > > But if you don't see the difference between *"enemies standing nearby one of 3 exits"* (and NOT spawncamping/spawnkilling, because they can't) and *"building siege equipment in zones that are designed to be normally not accessible by enemies, while being able to shoot back at them from those safezones"* then I'll need you to explain to me how these are similar concepts, because currently I don't get it. > > I'll try to explain: > > one side have a defensive structure with no limitations with a range of x to hit you > You have a defensive structure with many limitations that you can't use a t a range of x and you can't hit what is on the other defended structure. > > One player have the whole map and you have just one corner with 1 (one) access, you are not in a similar situation in an open field, every map has strategic points and accesses but you are in open field, here you are in a corner with a barrier in front of you, you can't hit the enemy and they can throw everything at you just because your only access way are camped by a pletora of enemy sieges, you can't flank, you can't come from behind etc this is only due to the topological design of the map that is just a square, could be nice for a flat earth enthusiasti but from my personal point of view this is a great gift to the other side, there are limits that are given just to the weak side. > > And this is not good for the game experience, you are giving a great advantage to the strong side, for this reason they do spawncamping for hours, maybe the only way is that the third side start to react and engage them from behind but this is not always possible. so in this case you have really a deadlock. Ok, I might be misunderstanding what you mean here because your choice of naming things in an exacmple gets in the way for me -it would be easier if you used actual WvW terms in this post, as "defensive structure", "range of x", "many limitations" doesn't tell me a lot to paint a proper picture. Anyways, considering this is about spawn safezones being camped: Enemy sieges that aren't in a safe zone, so even if build behind the walls, can be accessed and destroyed (as opposed to the spawn area). Sieges that people need to sit by to use them, which means your side is already winning in numbers against them. Sieges that don't guard 3 entrances. Sieges that have slow projectiles, so can be rather easly dodged. Sieges that can't move, so you can pick your targets to cap and fight over instead of trying to take the most guardeed one. So... where's the "bug" or "bad design" here? How are you unable to leave the spawn because of some trebs? Am I even understanding this correctly? :no_mouth: > @"Linken.6345" said: > If you have that much of a problem with it stay on your home borderland were you have this in my oppinion imagened advantage. > Edit > Is this what the american servers are like? > I have never been spawned camped on any of the boarderlands. Same.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"lightstalker.1498" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see YOU, the one complaining about thief, show casing how thief is OP, and can we see last 10 games played on thief screenshot with at or above 50% win rate? It is a sad state of affairs when devs balance the game around streamers. Some really do nothing else, and I would hope that means they are good at the game, if you get my drift. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure here is a video I made recently. exactly 10 minutes into the video I ambushed by an high rank d/p thief. Although I did defeat the thief in both fights, I think its pretty clear that the thief lost almost by choice. What I mean is, the thief is able to reset over and over trying to get a burst. At the same time, on Mirage my clones run around and almost never actually make contact. The actual kill on the thief is very short using confusion, which is NOT easy. Most of the time these fights go to the thief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly 10 minutes into the video my fight with a d/p DD starts. The clip right after is the DDs 2nd attempt which also fails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I can consistently win against thieves if they decide to fight me, but if they decide to fight me then it's automatically losing *by choice*. Class broken because it can run away". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this what you've just said? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously not. Your statement smells like troll bait. =) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In what way what you said doesn't mean what I said? Explain what you meant then. You were supposed to show thief being op [while playing it], but all you did was link to a vid [from a different mode btw] where you win against thief twice and then claimed "thief lost by choice". Apparently that "choice" being "actually fighting". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thief for SURE lost by choice. My post talking about that is VERY clear. You are obviously looking for an agument and hoping to miss represent facts to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **The thief lost by choice because in the video you can literally see the thief stealth and reset out of range many many times. Each time the thief has the option to leave the fight** if it ever felt it might lose or was in a losing match-up. Therefore, as I said before the thief was arguably being lazy and assuming it would get the kill because its probably used to face-rolling over Mesmer and others. In other words, the thief CHOSE to ambush me and had multiple chances to leave the fight and live if it ever thought it was in a losing fight. So obviously it thought it was in a winning fight and was wrong. That means it was 100% the thief's choice/mistake all the way from start to finish. Its extremely clear and not even really debatable. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...so you think he "lost by choice because he didn't run away". Not sure why you've tried calling me a troll and then repeated what I said (and what you said before). > > > > > > > > > > > > You try to say "the thief thought he was in a winning fight" based on what exactly? Based on the fact that he didn't "run away for good," despite needing to disengage multiple times to not die earlier? That's hilarious. Absolutely make sure to tell me where that conclusion came from. > > > > > > And the fact that whenever he disengaged and re-engaged, you also had the time to heal up is somehow irrelvant here? It's almost as if he taking his time also give you time to do whatever you want to do and helped you stand your ground. > > > > > > You say that "he's used to face-rolling over mesmer and others", but somehow he didn't faceroll you? Why exactly? Why is the thief using stealth or running unfair, but you utilizing your mechanic and standing between your clones is perfectly fine? Running isn't winning, not even close. Even moreso in pvp gamemode btw. > > > > > > > > > > You really make no sense. > > > > > > > > At which part exactly? (inb4 "all of it" which is not a valid answer, but just an effort to escape facts you don't like :( ) > > > > > > > > > I was standing still typing in chat, thief stealth attacks me and stealth again so quick that clones cannot reach thief. the thief keeps stealthing and attacking a mostly stationary target (me) who didn't instigate the attack or chase the thief. Repeatedly the clones cannot even hit the thief because it can restealth so fast after attacks that Mirage (me) almost cannot hit the thief. The thief does significant damage to my Trailblazer Mirage. The thief can reset over and over. > > > > > > > > "stealths and attack a mostly stationary target who didn't instigate the attack"? "repeatedly the clones cannot even hit the thief?" "significant dmg"? You were at 16k+ hp for vast majority of that fight. > > > > It's pretty funny because your description here is just a plain lie, maybe you should rewatch your own video before trying to talk back? > > > > > > > > 10:02 -start of the fight, thief deals 7k of free dmg because -just like you said- you stand in the middle of wvw and type (not sure how that's supposed to play into you trying to show thief is op, but ok :lol: ) > > > > 10:22 -you're already at about the same hp %. Thief stealths, but still takes some condi dmg, now he's at lower hp % (and just flat lower hp, but that was true since the start of the fight, so w/e) than you are. Good job achieving that while claiming the thief is impossible to hit I guess? > > > > Now you're just standing behind the clones, waiting for the thief to appear/re-engage. Which he does and so he takes more dmg going from 60%+ hp to 20%. All that not exactly by you somehow outplaying him or presenting some hightened gamesense with *exceptional mouse-skill-clicking reflexes*, but mostly by standing near your clones (which, as you claim, can't even hit the thief -must be magic). > > > > Thief burns heal and stealths, because he already almost died, while you're still at >16k hp. The fight resets for both of you and at this point... so much for your "he thought he'll easly win theory, when he pretty much already lost once and had to run away. > > > > > > > > Then he re-engages again, tries to burst you, he can't, you stand by the clones, yaddayaddayadda, same story as before, goes down to **11%** hp, while you're still at **13k**. At this point he disengages again, but you actually even get out of combat first to heal back to full hp when he's still at below 40%. Now YOU engage him, he barely touches you and dies because you're clearly some kind of skill-clicking condi mirage god or something xd > > > > > > > > >What kinda stuff are you smoking? I might like some too! Blather on all u like though about thief. > > > > > > > > Aww buddy -pretty clearly if anyone's "smoking something" here, it's not me. Keep making your own reality despite the video you've posted by yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you said, I pointed out and then *you confirmed again*: the thief *"lost by choice"*, because he *chose* to participate in a fight while in wvw instead of running away and pveing camps I guess. > > > > > > So when I go from like 24k to 16k each attack, thats not significant damage? smoke some more crack. BTW I could really give a kitten about this thief if your problem. I just posted a video as an example of thieves high reset potential. > > > > > > You are just a bitter player looking to attack someone to make yourself feel better. As I said before. Keep it up you may just find you bring yet, MORE unwanted attention from Anet about thief balance and get yet more nerfs. (none of which I asked for or suggested) > > > > > > Go smoke a little more crack. > > > > Buddy, stop spamming with "woah you smoke crack!" when you don't have anything of value to respond with. > > Take a few deeper breaths, re-read what I wrote (while you're at it, maybe even re-read your own post I was answering to, just to make sure I am actually responding to what you said, which I do) and answer with something relevant. If you want to randomize insults, look somewhere else. > > > > You're the one person in this thread that keeps constantly insulting others instead of answering to the contents of their msgs in at least last few of your posts -so much for being "*a bitter player looking to attack someone to make yourself feel better*". For real, re-read last few posts and take a good look at yourself in light of what you just wrote. > > Here is a list of the reasons you are wrong in list form to make it simple. Great. > 1) thief is MUCH higher rank Rank is mostly irrelevant and can be farmed by running in zergs and spamming aoes. WvW rank isn't an equivalent of some sort of literal "ranked ladder". We're discussing certain mechanics and classes, in this case based on a specific situation from the video you've posted. Respond accordingly, instead of taking shortcuts by claiming rank is a factor here. > 2) thief keeps resetting out of my combat range > 2a if I chase I use up my only mobility which is also one of 2 stun breaks. > 2b At this point the thief is free to find a new target or wait for another attack opportunity. Then... don't chase. What's the problem here? Thief uses resources to run and then uses resources to go in if you're not playing like thief wants you to play. You stood your ground and he didn't do much. Then YOU engaged when you went OOC before the thief and were able to kill him. So what's the problem? That you can't just blindly chase someone without thinking? Being able to stand your ground instead of running away is even more relevant if we' remember we're in pvp mode subforum. Once again, "running away" is far from winning. And willingness to fight 1v1 is far from "losing by choice". > 3) the thief does enough damage to kill me given the chance which is why its attacking. I don't know what this point is supposed to be responding to. We saw he wasn't able to kill you despite getting initial free shots due to you literally standing in the middle of wvw and typing. "The class does enough dmg to have a chance of winning" -well it sure better *have a chance* or what's the point here? It's still not an equivalent of you claiming "he was sure to have an easy kill", which most probably wasn't the case judging how the fight went for an extended period of time. > 4) the thief instigated the fight from stealth ambush on a trailblazer Mirage which the thief's mistake if anyone's. So thief is so broken that he shouldn't fight your class because it's a loss? Again, I don't understand how this proves what OP asked you to prove. > 5) My entire damage burst on the thief was from confusion which means when the thief goes down its actually from them choosing to activate skills which leads to them taking bust level damage. I wonder how the thief is supposed to disengage without using skills. Again, what does this point change about this situation? That you can counter the disengage? That's the opposite of your initial claims and opposite of what OP was asking for. > 6) the point of my post was to respond to another post about thief having high reset potential in wvw to the point that people complain about it. No, don't try to change the facts again. [What you were answering to](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/121024/can-you-prove-with-video-thief-is-strong-not-the-pro-streamer-but-your-video/p1) was literally this thread's opening post, which you've even quoted: *"I would like to see YOU, the one complaining about thief, show casing how thief is OP, and can we see last 10 games played on thief screenshot with at or above 50% win rate? It is a sad state of affairs when devs balance the game around streamers. Some really do nothing else, and I would hope that means they are good at the game, if you get my drift."* To which you also wrote that: -"thief lost by choice" -AGAIN, apparently that "choice to lose" being not deciding to run away, which you constantly try to deny now, while also writing exactly that -"What I mean is, the thief is able to reset over and over trying to get a burst." -yup, he is. And that's what he does. And the result doesn't change. Which in the pvp mode just means he's not capping the point from you. *BUT HEY, that's only because I chose to have trailblazer so he can't easly burst me down!* well, duh. You picked a build and now it's hard for the thief to win with you even if he disengages multiple times. Until you have that option available in the game, I'm not sure why you're complaining. One way or another, this video showed the opposite of what OP asked for. -"At the same time, on Mirage my clones run around and almost never actually make contact." -that's false and I think I pointed that out sufficiently clear in the post where I gave you a little, uh, breakdown of your own replay. If the thief was not touched by your clones, he wouldn't need to constantly disengage in the first place, while in reality most of the time he had less hp than you did. -"Most of the time these fights go to the thief." -the thief tried dis-/re-engageing multiple times and the result was similar in every case. Play the thief and farm trailblazer mirages or something, then you'll do what OP asked for. Do you understand the difference between what was asked for and what you delivered/wrote about? > 7) You seem to wana nit pick my input methods for skill activation rather than talk about the actual subject. Yes, I totally "want to nit pick", which is why I'm responding to your posts as a whole, while you constantly dogde what I'm saying. Because your input method was clearly the main point of my posts here, ok. > Im not going to explain everything to someone who I think is just looking for some kind of soft target. You no valid counter argument. No valid counter argument? I keep responding to what you write, I'm not sure what else you expect from a discussion -not only this, but literally any. Did I miss some crucial parts of your posts or lied about what happened in your video or about what you wrote? I don't think I did, but IF I did, then by all means make sure to point it out. > You seem to want to counter the fact that thief has massive reset potential by saying, in effect, _No your wrong thief is so badly under powered it couldn't possibly kill a Mirage because the thief lost._ That isn't a counter argument to the fact that thieves high reset potential or that ultimately means the thief chose to fight and stay in the fight to the loss and had other options that would have let the thief escape the fight it started if it didnt wana be in that fight. PARTICULARLY, when you take into account Im running a built that is using CONFUSION for its burst meaning they had to activate skills to get hurt like they did..... That's by far not what I said. I said that engaging in a fight isn't *choosing to lose*. That running isn't winning (even moreso in pvp). That what you linked and wrote isn't an answer to what OP asked for. Yes, the thief used skills. Tell me how he was supposed to *try to disengage* without doing that. Also if I tried to claim that "thief is so badly underpowered it couldn't possibly kill a [whatever]", you can be sure I'd be lobbying for some teef buffs, which I'm not doing -not here and not anywhere. So that seems like a miss to me.

> @"NaramSin.2693" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Overally this is neither a "bug" nor the case of a "bad design". Seriously, people should stop using "bad design" as a term (and main argument) for "something I dislike". > > It was said the same in the past for things that, sometimes after years, Arenanet (finally) changed, even the spawn camp at the time allowed to build siege inside and was changed for a reason, maybe it's time to change again due to the evolution of the game since then or depending on player abuse of game mechanics, so sometimes is better to take in consideration things that are "the status quo" at the moment and ask yourself if really they are well designed, a game that think to be "perfect" will never evolve and it is dead. I see you're interested in talking in absolute hypothetical theories, but I'm not sure what value it has here. Anet is allowed to "change something, sometimes after years", because some ideas and concept may naturally change. But if you don't see the difference between *"enemies standing nearby one of 3 exits"* (and NOT spawncamping/spawnkilling, because they can't) and *"building siege equipment in zones that are designed to be normally not accessible by enemies, while being able to shoot back at them from those safezones"* then I'll need you to explain to me how these are similar concepts, because currently I don't get it. One way or another, he can wish for something to change, but there's absolutely no need to dress something as "a bug" or "bad design" when it's neither of those things.