Sobx.1758

> @"Nurgle.6597" said: > There are indeed people manipulating the markets and something should be done. There's a wp video (vid) where these people openly talk about what they do, hearing that they have millions of gold manipulating the market while I'm just playing the game normally and never had more that 1k gold in my 6 years of play time was sickening. Made the whole game seem pointless to me, the rich only get richer while the rest of us play in the mud (just like in real life). Not watching a 2h vid, but putting that aside: how EXACTLY does it make it pointless for you to play the game? You can't stand someone "having more than you" so much that the mere thought of that makes you regret playing the game? It doesn't exactly affect you. If it does, explain how. As a side note, you don't need to manipulate anything to get 1k++ gold.

> @"sorudo.9054" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > the start should always be core easiness > > > > Why? > > It's not like you're starting a new game every time you go into a new expansion. Not only you know more about the game and its mechanics (well, at least you should), but also you're getting new tools at your disposal with expansions. Suddenly reverting to the initial difficulty despite all of that doesn't make sense to me. So why do you think it should always start like that? > > because not everyone started out playing 8 years ago, some ppl play when EoD launches, that's why. It's irrelevant, you didn't need to start playing 8 years ago, you still should go through the available content/expantions. If you skip riiight into the latest parts of the game before completing previous ones then... you know, it's your choice and *it's on you*. Right? To put it in slightly different terms: as a player in many games you're free to skip the tutorial. But if you do it, you're not exactly in place of making a complaint that *there's no repeated tutorial* after 70% of the game you've played through. If for some reason now you need to play through the tutorial to learn something you didn't on your way here then... you go back to the tutorial (or easier parts of the game to practice). And luckily you can do exactly that in this game, because it's not linear and the previous content doesn't disappear just because you've skipped it or played through it once.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > the game does a good job of teaching the necessary skills > > At the very least, if the game did a good job of teaching the necessary skills, then players would have to change a couple chosen traits in their specialization because learning that is pretty time-consuming. As far as I'm aware, a majority of new players who reach lvl 80 don't even understand why they should use a greatsword over axe/mace as as a warrior in PvE modes. I agree with @"Seera.5916" that the game does a good job when teaching most of the key elements that each player should understand while making their own build. The additional explanation for cc usage against breakbars would obviously be useful, but it was already discussed many times in the past. It's weird that you seem to base your opinion about players "not understanding how the game/build works" on the fact that *they don't run the builds you want them to run*. There's nothing wrong about running axes or maces in pve modes. I don't run gs in pve on warrior because I don't want/need to (won't even try to argue with you why you're wrong about gs in pve imo, because I guess that's not the main point anyways) and it by far doesn't make me somehow confused about the game mechanics or optimal/meta builds.

> @"artcreator.4859" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"moony.5780" said: > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > It surprises me that when so many people complain about the game being too difficult that Anet is losing people because it's too easy. There's no way to win this debate. > > > > > > only if everyone could choose their dificulty....so like get like -3 lvl downscaled with a bit higher rewards or normal gameplay..or even +2 lvl higher with less rewards > > > > Just make a new character that you only use with your friend, what's the issue here? > > made a new character and its still easy Did you read the rest of the comment chain? You have options, like going to a higher level maps. Early levels are made with new players in mind, which is where they're learning basics of the game.

> @"moony.5780" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"moony.5780" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"moony.5780" said: > > > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > > > It surprises me that when so many people complain about the game being too difficult that Anet is losing people because it's too easy. There's no way to win this debate. > > > > > > > > > > only if everyone could choose their dificulty....so like get like -3 lvl downscaled with a bit higher rewards or normal gameplay..or even +2 lvl higher with less rewards > > > > > > > > Just make a new character that you only use with your friend, what's the issue here? > > > > > > thats what i did...and the new character is even stronger sometimes than my main character..... > > > > If it is, then instead of gearing yourself, maybe help with gearing your newb friend instead. > > i did :) hes even geared better than me Then how are you ksing everything with autoattacks before he can do anything? And if you're duoing mobs on low level mobs designed for new players to learn the game without being oppressed by npcs, then maybe aim at going to higher level zones. This seems like a made up problem with easy solutions that are intentionally not used for whatever reason.

> @"moony.5780" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"moony.5780" said: > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > It surprises me that when so many people complain about the game being too difficult that Anet is losing people because it's too easy. There's no way to win this debate. > > > > > > only if everyone could choose their dificulty....so like get like -3 lvl downscaled with a bit higher rewards or normal gameplay..or even +2 lvl higher with less rewards > > > > Just make a new character that you only use with your friend, what's the issue here? > > thats what i did...and the new character is even stronger sometimes than my main character..... If it is, then instead of gearing yourself, maybe help with gearing your newb friend instead.

> @"moony.5780" said: > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > It surprises me that when so many people complain about the game being too difficult that Anet is losing people because it's too easy. There's no way to win this debate. > > only if everyone could choose their dificulty....so like get like -3 lvl downscaled with a bit higher rewards or normal gameplay..or even +2 lvl higher with less rewards Just make a new character that you only use with your friend, what's the issue here?

I'm wondering what could possibly -and honestly- make someone unhappy about meeting another player in open world in a game like gw2. There's one person that voted for a "not happy" option and I specifically wanted to read the reasoning, but... well... it doesn't exist. Can anyone explain in what way meeting another player in gw2 could make him unhappy? <.< I also agree @"kharmin.7683" and @"Naxos.2503" and wonder what's the point of the poll. I think usually making a poll like this one would be "triggered" by some ingame event OP participated in. Meanwhile @"moony.5780" himself didn't vote and subsequentially explain his opinion about this. Why is that? And where exactly the idea for this poll come from? ;) (and don't confuse this post with me saying you shouldn't make the poll or anything like that, that's not the case. I'm just curious about the things I've asked above)

> @"Bish.8627" said: > I ran into a similar issue where I had more hours to play each night than my friends. If you want to do stuff with friends, do the story and story dungeons together. That way you can do the open world at your own pace, then go help them with stuff when they reach it and experience that together. That or create 2 characters -one to play solo and one to play with friends only. (if you want to have the same map completion % as them)

> @"Touchme.1097" said: > Dear Anet, > I am pointing you in the direction of a change into how leveling currently works when interacting with POI, vistas, doing hearts, discovering maps and killing monsters. > I find it very annoying when leveling up with friends to slow myself down to let them catch up with me because I am a very fast paced player and I get things done quick. > Can you change the way players experience leveling by sharing the contribution in a map when they are both on the same instance of the same map? > This way leveling with friends would feel much more enjoyable and less frustrating and selfish as it is now. At the moment every contribution to map and hearts is totally individual even when partying with friends and it doesn't feel right to me. > Regards If you play WITH your friends, then play WITH them and you'll get the same/similar xp. If you want to run off wherever, then you're no longer leveling together. If you find yourself consistenly outpacing your friends when completing hearts in party, then stop racing them for the related activities/pickup and instead focus more on helping your friends, so you actually play together instead of just being together in the same instance.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > About it being "cheaper" -steam takes money from anet, anet doesn't like losing money, so maybe it still wouldn't really be cheaper. > > > > > and about anet losing money, it's money they didnt have to begin with if steam takes 30% cut from sales then better 70% goes to arenanet than nothing at all. i don't see arenanet losing in anyway here > > > > > > > > You don't? If they let the old accounts join the steam then they lose *the steam cut* from all of those players they previously didn't. Then they're taking a gamble if you'll actually increase the playerbase that will spend and cover for that loss, aye? > > > > > > not really going to argue after this but sure they lose a cut. but _some_ people who are currently playing also currently do not "pay" and just convert gold to gems to buy for the most part. by giving a new payment method via steam wallet, losses aside, they may actually make "paying" customers out of those gold to gem people if they have access to a much more convenient and "cheaper" payment method. > > > > These are some bold assumptions based on nothing. I don't see why people that are already mainly/only going gold>gem road would sudenly start paying just because they were on steam. This seems to be simply wrong. > > i didnt say they **would**. i said they **may**. so no one would suddenly start buying gems/pay. but yeah let's just agree to disagree with each other. And I said these are some bold assumptions, because they are. I also said this seems to be false, because it most probably is for vast majoity of players here. "May" or "would"... doesn't matter -you're trying to use it as an argument either way, so I'll just address it for what it is I guess.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > About it being "cheaper" -steam takes money from anet, anet doesn't like losing money, so maybe it still wouldn't really be cheaper. > > > and about anet losing money, it's money they didnt have to begin with if steam takes 30% cut from sales then better 70% goes to arenanet than nothing at all. i don't see arenanet losing in anyway here > > > > You don't? If they let the old accounts join the steam then they lose *the steam cut* from all of those players they previously didn't. Then they're taking a gamble if you'll actually increase the playerbase that will spend and cover for that loss, aye? > > not really going to argue after this but sure they lose a cut. but _some_ people who are currently playing also currently do not "pay" and just convert gold to gems to buy for the most part. by giving a new payment method via steam wallet, losses aside, they may actually make "paying" customers out of those gold to gem people if they have access to a much more convenient and "cheaper" payment method. These are some bold assumptions based on nothing. I don't see why people that are already mainly/only going gold>gem road would suddenly start paying just because they were on steam. This seems to be simply false.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > About it being "cheaper" -steam takes money from anet, anet doesn't like losing money, so maybe it still wouldn't really be cheaper. > and about anet losing money, it's money they didnt have to begin with if steam takes 30% cut from sales then better 70% goes to arenanet than nothing at all. i don't see arenanet losing in anyway here You don't? If they let the old accounts join the steam then they lose *the steam cut* from all of those players they previously didn't. Then they're taking a gamble if you'll actually increase the playerbase that will spend and cover for that loss, aye?

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > Your initial argument is more or less waving off the casual players' game sense, and making a ton of assumptions that this is what people should do. Which is exactly the last thing you want to design a system as important as stats as. Which initial argument? And how exactly am I "*waving off the casual player' game sense*" -what do you even mean by that? Can you finally **be more specific** than just repeating some broad phrases (exactly like the one above) and pretty much avoid responding to what I wrote? All the while telling me I'm "making a ton of assumptions" when -from what I see- this is what you're doing since the very start of this thread, including the post I'm answering to right now. The players in rpgs have access to hero panels, this is the norm. Here, they're being guided to/through them level after level, page after page to avoid dumping all the info at them in case they'll get overwhelmed by them. What "ton of assumptions" did I even make here? If the player doesn't want to read those SHORT tips then there's not much you can do about it and it means nothing about the system being good or bad. > I said "players have no idea what having a build actually mean". This is quite literally the equivalent of not knowing what goes into a build. I don't really know what to say here other than why do you expect it is a sensible idea that players who dont know about traits and things as a result of the gameplay is their own fault? I know that's what you said, this is also what I've quoted, right? Players that level up their character and read the tips know "what goes into their build" and "know about traits and things", because the game tells them about *those things* while they're leveling up. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise? When was the last time you've leveled up a character and actually read the tips that are popping up on your screen? I seriously don't know what you're talking about right now. > > They can also skip it by googling meta/fotm/top builds for their class, > > I've already explained this as a question, if you believe that it is more engaging and player retentive to go away from the game to find answers instead of practising and learning in the game then there's nothing to say there. This was not the whole point I was making, so stop pretending it was while disregarding everything else I wrote, thanks. Also if you don't remember the context it was written in, then feel free to re-read the post including the quote I was responding to. I literally wrote that they can do it **if they want to skip the learning process*, so not sure why you're trying to pretend "I think they should go away from the game to find answers instead of practising and learning in the game" LOL. Seriously, re-read again what you're answering to instead of fishing for a fraction of my response and pretending nothing before and after that exists. I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose, so... yeah, definitely re-read what exactly I wrote in that section, because it is NOT what you're suggesting. > > It's clear that you can't get everything at the same time. > Yes. That's the point. Rather than getting it away from the game, you get it during the process of practise and exposure in the game to lvl 80. I don't know what you're responding to. I was writing about the stats, re-read the quote I was reponding to at that moment and then read that sentence in context of the whole paragraph -it might be just me, but currently I don't understand the relevance of what you've just wrote here as an answer to what you've quoted. > Ultimately, the bias of an experienced player who also clearly isn't a casual MMORPG player is seen here rather than the new casual player where it's a "oh it's just there", just "google it, look at the wiki". With any reason of sensibility, no casual player would find it fun to actually go minimize the game to look at youtube tutorials and read the wiki than learning it with friends IN the game. Which is the main point. No, it's not, so much for not making assumptions. How about you try responding to what I actually write instead of running away from it and doing... this? You've very clearly dodged vast majority of what I wrote and the parts you've responded to were taken HEAVILY out of context to pretend I wrote something else than I did. I don't know what you're trying to achieve with that. I didn't say "it's just there" -I wrote "the game shows you where it is". I didn't write "just google/wiki it" -reread the whole paragraph and stop pretending I meant something I clearly didn't.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > What do you mean "no explanation to what makes this useful"? **There are skill/trait descriptions ** and tooltips with effects listed and dmg values shown which you can compare between the skills. > > This is what the casual player sees when they level up: >  > > It is quite frankly just a word vomit. There is no lesson learned from either consequences or benefiting of a particular stat, and more than not this will be forgotten in the next half n hour much less 30 levels in and people are jumping from weapon to weapon. There is clearly no opportunity to actually understand the gravity of how much power I have actually effects my damage output. How is this a word vomit? It explains what basic stats do, so they can make their early gear choices (with 1 modifier per item) and familiarize themselves with how the game works. I don't think the naming here is confusing enough for them to instantly forget what -for example- "power" does. But in case they do, at the very same tip you've linked to, they can see information about hero panel and after they open it (like the game guides them to do in order to equip the weapon they've just received), they'll moooost probably notice the stats. From what I know hovering over the stats isn't exactly rocket science for most players (*"oh look, some numbers and icons, I wonder what it is"*) and when they do that, they'll see that there are short descriptions for each of them in case they need them clarified again. I really don't see the problem here. >There is no integration from this to this: >  >  There's no integration from this to this, because what you've linked here has nothing to do with level 2 tooltip you've posted here. Traits are locked till like level... 11? And pretty sure by then there's another pop-up tip informing the player about them. They also won't have many (any?) weapons to swap between at this point and the skills... I think they'll have 1 or 2 weapon skill and a heal. At this point they're literally learning one skill per level, they don't need to study skills en-masse and think about picking the best. > Which is even more of a visual screen mess. You don't need to ask hundreds of players to realize after helping run dungeons, much less t1-t2 fractals, to realize that players have no idea what having a build actually means nor the significance of their profession and what stats are most viable. Even after on and off years, this remains an absolute pattern amongst new players. This is just a core missed opportunity by ANET to drive player engagement and give the combat system a greater depth by providing players the actual hands-on training with varying stats. "players have no idea what having a build actually means"? I think they do. "Having a bad build" isn't an equivalent of "having no idea what a build means". They're free to make their bad choices because that's just the learning process. They can also skip it by googling meta/fotm/top builds for their class, but suggesting that anet should guide them ingame into those meta build is just baseless and wrong. Anyone wanting to take the shortcut through the learning process can already easly do it. For anyone else learning by failing is perfectly fine. Just because you want players to somehow instantly swap to meta builds for your parties means nothing. And I don't understand what "missed opportunity" are you talking about here? Can you spell it out for me in simplier terms? Are you seriously talking about cutting the learning process of the players along with taking away the possibility for them to play around with their skills/traits/weapons to craft their OWN build at their OWN pace as a "missed opportunity", or did I horribly misunderstand something here? > > There's nothing to try the skills on (even if for some reason you don't consider mobs being something to experiment on) -at the very least there are training areas in aerodrome/pvp. > This is exactly the issue. I wrote the post in the perspective for a new player/returning player. Unless told, no player has 0 idea golems exist. There is literally no mention of it anywhere during the levelling process that you can go to PvP and try new skills, this is not even beginning to mention how the PvP build panel wouldn't be overwhelming. Moreover, it just wouldn't be thematical for a player to train what would be intended for PvE in a PvP lobby. Let me clarify that the actual quote of what I wrote is this: *"**lets not pretend that** there's nothing to try the skills on (even if for some reason you don't consider mobs being something to experiment on) -at the very least there are training areas in aerodrome/pvp."* ...but the players are notified about existance of pvp right at the level 3? If they go there and look around, they'll see the golems rather fast from what I can tell. If they decide not to go there (which is perfectly fine and a valid thing for the player to do), I don't see why they wouldn't be able to *try out* their newly acquired skills on early level mobs, which are made pretty weak for the purpose of allowing the new players learning the game. It's also not like they need to test some kind of rotations, at this point the players are unlcoking "a skill per level" to learn the basics step by step. But sure, as I said -easier accessible pve golems? I don't see why not, they could put them somewhere on the peripherals (or near the entrance) of every major city, w/e. > > This is another thing I don't really understand the problem with. What do you mean "what happens when you have higher dps"? Isn't this pretty self-explanatory? > > Everybody understands the sentence "more strength, more damage". But what does that exactly mean to World Bosses? Dungeons? Environmental mechanics? Fractals? To your build where in many rotations, there's no need for certain professions to be high DPS? There is no baseline for a player to comparatively weigh the effects of changing builds through their levelling process provided by the game. For world bosses, dungeons, fractals and so on it means exactly the same. More dmg, the mob dies faster. What else could it mean? :D I still don't see what would need to be explained here. If someone doesn't care about getting a coherent build or high dps, then it's "on them". Except at this point it's their choice and I don't really care what they do. They are free to play what and how they want. > > and for the most part, they're not? > Players can go do their entire personal story, living season, and t1 fractals and dungeons without ever having to realize the importance of a build. Like I said already, there **is a hands off** approach to stats so yes they're not but this presents the issue of leaving TOO much information with no indicator to where to start. I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by "hands off approach to stats". Stats are explained. It's clear that you can't get everything at the same time. It's clear that *one stat does x* and *the other does y*. It's clear the player make choices with their stats, skills, traits and weapons. It's clear that some builds can be more optimal than the others. All of that is still part of learning experience and **the individual player choice**. Just because *you think the player doesn't understand the build system because they don't use optimal(-ish) meta build* doesn't mean the players don't understand what the build system is and what "having a build" means. By the way, literally randomly clicking on the traits while buying gear with ranomized stats is still equivalent to *having a build*. It might be a bad build, but if someone doesn't feel like making a choice (or made a choice to play through the game through mostly relying on luck) then what you or I want from them is simply irrelevant. And again, it doesn't mean they don't understand what build is, I don't know how you came up with that theory.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: >As it stands, a skill is unlocked with no explanation to what makes this useful. What do you mean "no explanation to what makes this useful"? There are skill/trait descriptions and tooltips with effects listed and dmg values shown which you can compare between the skills. And while I don't mind "just having more training golem equivalent options" in pve that aren't as secluded, lets not pretend that there's nothing to try the skills on (even if for some reason you don't consider mobs being something to experiment on) -at the very least there are training areas in aerodrome/pvp. >The instructor can showcase what happens when you have a higher DPS This is another thing I don't really understand the problem with. What do you mean "what happens when you have higher dps"? Isn't this pretty self-explanatory? What is there to explain/showcase? I get it, people don't need to be thrown into the deep water right away (and for the most part, they're not?), but lets not pretend that people need to have it spelled out for them to understand "what happens when you deal more dmg" lol.

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > > >If people kick other people right out of groups or insult them right off the bat, only for being core rev or herald, then theres clearly something wrong. > > > > > > > > Never seen that happen, but judging by posts on this forum, it seems everyone "gets kicked or insulted" unless they play barely few of the top meta picks. So nah, I doubt that's what you're frequently met with. > > > then you are a lucky one. lets call it like that: If a build (like dps herald) isnt found on something like "Snowcrows", then its not accepted. > > > > It's not about luck, it's about knowing how to get teams that allow you to play how you want. Not being meta isn't a sign there is something wrong and if groups are rejecting you, this isn't a reason for Anet to change something. it is a reason for you to get a different group. > > but dont forget, people only want "meta" these days. Doesnt matter if they can execute meta tactics or not, just the team composition is important *Some* people do, others don't. You seem to intentionally only mention the situations that might be used to get your class/espec buffed and then claim it's the norm. But it's not. And what exactly do you enjoy about Herald's playstyle (in comparison to rev/rng) if it's not about its performance? I think it's the second person I see claiming that, but I never managed to get an answer to that.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said: Hey, I'm not looking for guesses, I was curious about his specific reason, but I guess thanks for helping him in case he couldn't come up with one :) About it being "cheaper" -steam takes money from anet, anet doesn't like losing money, so maybe it still wouldn't really be cheaper. Also what he wrote in his post I was responding to: >I didn´t spend money on the game not because I saw no reason. Far from it. I have a TON of stuff I wish I could, but GW2 is pretty much my only non Steam game. >If I could use steam wallet to buy stuff, I would certainly make things easier, since all my games are Steam and I pretty much always have balance. Seems a bit closer to my take than yours, but maybe I'm somehow reading it wrong.

> @"Infusion.7149" said: >If you roam you're better off playing PvP casually honestly Weird comparison, I'd say that it's just wrong. ...unless the rest of your post is intended to contradict what you said here, at which point I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. One way or another, there's no reason (that I'm aware of) to buff that trait.

> @"Sandokhan.4913" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Sandokhan.4913" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Sandokhan.4913" said: > > > > > Ok, ANET, you got me excited for about 15 seconds. Why the HELL can´t we use our existing accounts on Steam? > > > > > > > > Steam takes a 30% cut. Why exactly would Arenanet be willing to forfeit that revenue on existing accounts? > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sandokhan.4913" said: > > > I don´t spend any money on GW2 as it is. I WOULD if I could use my Steam wallet. > > > > So, you would suddenly spend money on a game which you saw no reason to in any way spend money on so far? I'm sure you would. /s > > I SURE would. I play this thing since beta. If I didn´t like the game I wouldn´t be playing, would I? > I´ll admit I don´t play as much as I´d like, due to work, family, children and so on, but I still love GW2 and play it as often as I can. > I didn´t spend money on the game not because I saw no reason. Far from it. I have a TON of stuff I wish I could, but GW2 is pretty much my only non Steam game. > > If I could use steam wallet to buy stuff, I would certainly make things easier, since all my games are Steam and I pretty much always have balance. ...but instead of transferring cash into steam, you can simply buy gems in gw2. I don't see where that sudden change would be supposed to come from. This really seems like a made up "I'd totally pay you anet!" bait for the sake of being addicted to steam launcher and just adding a game to the list.

> @"sorudo.9054" said: > the start should always be core easiness Why? It's not like you're starting a new game every time you go into a new expansion. Not only you know more about the game and its mechanics (well, at least you should), but also you're getting new tools at your disposal with expansions. Suddenly reverting to the initial difficulty despite all of that doesn't make sense to me. So why do you think it should always start like that?

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"valhalahunter.9863" said: > >I have never been on to complain, but come on, I just want an even playing field like everyone else. > Mystic Coin prices are the same on the TP for everyone. > How is this not even? Still waiting for OP to answer to this post, because I'm curious what exactly he meant.

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > > Uh. Rev is one of my fav classes to play. I have specced my renegade rev to be a survivable and it still hits pretty decently for being nowhere close to optimized for damage. It's... really not in any way a weak class. Your self heal is absurdly good with battle scars, you can do amazing aoe and control with Kalla's warband and your shortbow, and you can do great support both from renegade and herald with buffs to fury and might. Being able to give a whole group in meta on demand 15 might stacks and an aoe field that both amps their damage and allows them insane self heal is no joke either. There are also times when it helps a lot to have an anti ranged shield. Revs dominate the field of saying no to projectiles, outdoing even guardians. While this is limited application in groups, it can sometimes be a downright blessing solo, and also if you use planar protection from the heal with protective solace and your hammer shield then you can stay protected from missile basically forever while still dishing out damage. > > > > > > > > > > Renegade is not Revenant in whole. > > > > > > > > > > Revenant as core if pretty much bottom of everything, while herald can be a bit better, but still nowhere near "being not a joke". > > > > > > > > > > Renegade is extremely overtuned. 10man alac, 5man 25might, extreme group lifesiphone, extreme usage of battlescars, epic burst damage etc. > > > > > > > > being bad without elite speccs is nothing new. And many revs I see use herald because of the facets. > > > > > > if im lucky i see one other herald per day, while most play renegade. Most heralds chose herald simply because of the "perma swiftness". > > > > > > Because Rapid flow is kinda annoying & shiro is simply to loud > > > > Maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe if you're talking about pve only. Which this thread doesn't. And I'm sure you play herald because it's bad :D > > > > Not only that, but OP takes his stats for the initial statement from some publicly accessible site, so when he says "revenant is the least played profession", he means "revenant and its especs". > > I play herald because i have fun with it, which doesnt mean its good or bad. Yes, it doesn't mean it's good or bad. But the fact that it's good means it's good. Time to stop pretending it's not. >If people kick other people right out of groups or insult them right off the bat, only for being core rev or herald, then theres clearly something wrong. Never seen that happen, but judging by posts on this forum, it seems everyone "gets kicked or insulted" unless they play barely few of the top meta picks. So nah, I doubt that's what you're frequently met with. > And i assumed this thread is about PvE only, because Revenants are often found in wvw zergs and even in pvp. Well, time to re-read first post of this thread then ;) > Renegade alone is way more often found than Engineers ,thiefs, elementalists and mesmers (in PvE&pvp at least) Ok, so what's the problem? :D

I didn't believe the verb abuse reports do anything, but after not-so-extensive testing I can tell you that they do work, even for not as harsh words as you might think. :grimace: I assume reports for botting/cheating aren't automated, so they might take longer OR be missed due to lack of proof or w/e, but I know I've reported one absolutely obvious cheater in wvw and didn't see him online since then (which was 13.02). If I see him, I'll probably try submitting the clips I have on him along with his account name, but for now I'll just wait for him to show up again.

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > Uh. Rev is one of my fav classes to play. I have specced my renegade rev to be a survivable and it still hits pretty decently for being nowhere close to optimized for damage. It's... really not in any way a weak class. Your self heal is absurdly good with battle scars, you can do amazing aoe and control with Kalla's warband and your shortbow, and you can do great support both from renegade and herald with buffs to fury and might. Being able to give a whole group in meta on demand 15 might stacks and an aoe field that both amps their damage and allows them insane self heal is no joke either. There are also times when it helps a lot to have an anti ranged shield. Revs dominate the field of saying no to projectiles, outdoing even guardians. While this is limited application in groups, it can sometimes be a downright blessing solo, and also if you use planar protection from the heal with protective solace and your hammer shield then you can stay protected from missile basically forever while still dishing out damage. > > > > > > Renegade is not Revenant in whole. > > > > > > Revenant as core if pretty much bottom of everything, while herald can be a bit better, but still nowhere near "being not a joke". > > > > > > Renegade is extremely overtuned. 10man alac, 5man 25might, extreme group lifesiphone, extreme usage of battlescars, epic burst damage etc. > > > > being bad without elite speccs is nothing new. And many revs I see use herald because of the facets. > > if im lucky i see one other herald per day, while most play renegade. Most heralds chose herald simply because of the "perma swiftness". > > Because Rapid flow is kinda annoying & shiro is simply to loud Maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe if you're talking about pve only. Which this thread doesn't. And I'm sure you play herald because it's bad :D Not only that, but OP takes his stats for the initial statement from some publicly accessible site, so when he says "revenant is the least played profession", he means "revenant and its especs".