Sobx.1758

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > As I recall, people didn't like it when Mirage could time its skills to chain blocks, evade utiliies, dodge evades, and distortions. Well timed play could make it pretty hard to damage. That said, it always has solid counters when facing skilled opponents. > > > > > > > > Yet permaevade Daredevil with 3 base dodges is perfectly fine and doesn't need a nerf. > > > > > > Hehe Sadly, Mes cant have nice things ) > > > > ...except when "permaevade daredevil" was actually what you're claiming it was, it got nerfed too? > > > > > @"Salt Mode.3780" said: > > > > @"Woltarion.6829" said: > > > > > @"Every day pon.5386" said: > > > > > Who is to know if the profession will be updated by Mesmer players? The profession runs the risk of being worse off after another haphazard revision, so maybe the profession is safer & better off forgotten ?‍♀️ > > > > > > > > How could Mesmer become worse ? We just want our second dodge back > > > > > > we just want a CORE mechanic back > > > > Play CORE mesmer then? > > Core mechanic = dodge. Nothing to do with core traits. I know, but the especs can and do influence core mechanics too. I didn't write anything about traits, so not sure what you're responding to.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > As I recall, people didn't like it when Mirage could time its skills to chain blocks, evade utiliies, dodge evades, and distortions. Well timed play could make it pretty hard to damage. That said, it always has solid counters when facing skilled opponents. > > > > Yet permaevade Daredevil with 3 base dodges is perfectly fine and doesn't need a nerf. > > Hehe Sadly, Mes cant have nice things ) ...except when "permaevade daredevil" was actually what you're claiming it was, it got nerfed too? > @"Salt Mode.3780" said: > > @"Woltarion.6829" said: > > > @"Every day pon.5386" said: > > > Who is to know if the profession will be updated by Mesmer players? The profession runs the risk of being worse off after another haphazard revision, so maybe the profession is safer & better off forgotten ?‍♀️ > > > > How could Mesmer become worse ? We just want our second dodge back > > we just want a CORE mechanic back Play CORE mesmer then?

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > Sobx > > > > > > Not desired by whom? Some of the people blindly following an online ""guide"" for the top meta theoretical deeps squad comp? Never saw the problem when I had necros in my squad as long as they weren't slacking. > > > > > > You have to understand that if you are raiding and you got others who can do what you can do but better, then why bring necro? if the utility dmg and condi nec has is inferior in all ways why bring nec? > > > > Also true for vast majority of classes/especs/builds in the game, so not sure what point you're trying to make by pretending that's some kind of isolated case. "but something is stronger!" -cool, most people don't care as that content isn't balanced around strongest options. Which is exactly why I wrote what I wrote before. > > > > Format your post better please so it's clear which parts are quotes and which parts are your answers, I'm not going through that in its current form, just saying. > > Its important for a good reason: If you have a class who is weaker than others in all jobs possible in raids, then there is literally no reason to have one, By this logic there are barely any dps builds viable at all, because there can be just one top pick per encounter. So no, I don't agree with what you've just said. > Banner warriors for example had low dmg i heard but had good support so it made up for it, and if You are using a chrono for support and its doing low damage, then at least its functioning in 1 role and it makes perfect sense that it won't be doing high damage. But they don't have low dmg. The only people that complain about warrior dps are people that are blindly looking at top dps build and don't want to bring anything else despite there not being a reason for that behavior in this game.

> @"Nephalem.8921" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > If we were talking about WoW, your proof might have some relevance to this discussion. This is GW2 and GW2 is PURPOSEFULLY not designed like WoW. Nothing you can present will change the fact that if you impose (or allows others to impose) restrictions on how you play, you aren't playing inline with the design of the game. > > > > This arrogance is what made anthem and the first ff14 iteration fail hard. They are not that different afterall. Not looking at highly successful competitors is not working. A dodge key and unified buff/debuff system dont make gw2 completely different. 40% lower dps than the top performer is unacceptable. Yes, dodge button doesn't make it copletely different, but its overall gameplay pattern, content and the line that content/classes are balanced around does make it completely different. And it is acceptable, seeing how it works exactly because of the way the pve is balanced here. Which is not "like in wow". >Scourge just broke wvsw until it got severlely handicapped. ...and what's the relevance here?

> @"hobotnicax.7918" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"hobotnicax.7918" said: > > > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > > Apple and big player in gaming dont go together > > > > > > Prepare to be proven wrong in the following year or two ;) > > > > Isn't it great when people try to use their hypothetical hopes for the future as an argument? :) > > I mean... Nvidia must be dumb af to had bought ARM for 40b dollars then, hypothetical hopes and all. > And Microsoft giving haste to Windows 10 ARM development is probably pointless as well. > Apple going all out on ARM CPUs to replace almost their whole PROFESSIONAL line of computers along with consumer line. > > But they must have hypothetical hopes for the future. These are irrelevant companies, right? - not like that they more or less shaped the modern computing era or anything like that. Too bad that has nothing to do with your previous posts :( And I'm sure you weren't just apple fanboing for the past x years either just like you do now, right? :D

> @"Swagger.1459" said: > @"Astralporing.1957" > > Also... > > Masterwork- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Minor_Rune_of_the_Fire > > Rare- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Major_Rune_of_the_Fire > > Exotic- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_the_Fire > > Masterwork- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Minor_Sigil_of_Venom > > Rare- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Major_Sigil_of_Venom > > Exotic- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Venom > > Exotics, but no Ascended. We got Ascended Food. They made Legendary runes with exotic stats. Thread asks about Ascended. Maybe they can put in Ascended and apply that to Legendary runes and sigils instead. Or maybe they could add weaker sigil/rune tiers and then move rarity/color coding downwards, so you can have your tiers matching, while also not power creeping the game when there's no need for it, but instead have more unused tiers. That's an option, right? But, again, is it needed in the game? I don't think it is. @"Astralporing.1957" See, now some people are stuck discussing if the tiering system is the same or not instead of discussing if it's even needed in the game in the first place.

> @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > Well, actually, there is indeed an “exotic” tier to both runes and sigils... > > > > > > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Rune > > > > > > “Minor runes have no minimum level and have two bonuses, listed as (1) and (2). > > > > > > Major runes require armor at level 39 or above and provide four bonuses, (1) – (4). > > > > > > Superior runes can be applied to armor at level 60 or above and include six bonuses, (1) – (6). > > > > > > Legendary Runes have the power to take on the properties of any other rune” > > > > > > > > > And... > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sigil > > > > > > “Minor sigils have no minimum level. > > > > > > Major sigils require a level 39 weapon or above. > > > > > > Superior sigils require a level 60 weapon or above. > > > > > > Legendary Sigils have the power to take on the properties of any other sigil” > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Item#Quality > > > > > > So yes, the item quality/rarity of “Exotic” does exist for runes and sigils, and the item quality/rarity of “Ascended” is missing for both runes and sigils. > > > > > > Ty! Ttyl! > > Yes, precisely, thank you. > > > > As you have just illustrated here, contrary to your claim, runes are **not** classified according to the gear tiers (basic, fine, masterwork, rare, exotic, ascended), but have their own tiering system (minor, major, superior). Moreover, unlike the gear tier system, which is open, and easily allows for adding new tiers on top of already existing ones, rune tiering system is a closed one (because, seeing as you have only 6 rune slots you can use at the same time, 6-rune set is the best you can have). Adding anything above Superior tier would require either reworking the whole rune system, or a change in paradigm between tiers. As they exist now, runes have no conceptual space whatsoever for adding any higher tiers. > > > > So, again, it's not like "ascended tier" is missing here. There's simply no space for it at all within the confines of the current system. > > > > Well, actually, what “rarity” is a https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_Fireworks? > > ... Look like it says “Exotic” to me. > > Go ahead and please filter through the BLTC for the different rarities. > > And yes, there aren’t any “Ascended” runes or sigils. There is up to Exotic, then skips to Legendary, no Ascended. Hence the thread. > > Ty! Have a great day! True. ...but there's still no need for stronger runes/sigils, it's not like they lack impact on builds or are too weak for the content we have in the game.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > That said, I don't see how it changes anything :no_mouth: > It changes things, because we're not debating specific suggestions but seem to be stuck on debating existence of some mythical tier that a lot of people think should exist "just because", without any justification for it. > > OP started this thread with the question why that "purple tier" for runes/sigils was not introduced _yet_. With the silent assumption that it was obvious it should be introduced, and that lack of it is somehow an omission that should be fixed. > That assumption is wrong. Unlike with gear (where you can keep increasing stats till infinity, and adding new tiers is relatively easy, as long as you are okay with powe creep) the rune/gear system was designed around a specific number of tiers, and so adding to it is not trivial. And it's definitely not something that is "obvious" or supposed to happen. There is no "opportunity" for adding a tier. > > At the same time OP didn't present any suggestion of what adding that tier would mean. There have been other suggestions how to expand the rune system since then, but for the most part those have already been covered by Legendary tier. > > specifically, i am arguing against this kind of reasoning: > > @"Orpheal.8263" said: > > Runes follow exactly the same tier system, as like all other equipment, so its just logical, that also upgrades should have in their final form ascended quality versions > > We should not start with this kind of "logic", because it is based on assumption that is completely wrong. What we can do (if we want) is to present an idea about how rune system can be expanded, and debate this idea. But if we do that, we should be debating the suggestion based on its own merits alone. We should not be using the "ascended" argument as if it's worth anything - because it _isn't_. Ok. But here's the thing: I think it IS a similar tier system to the regular gear and if you'd say "exotic sigils", most people would probably know exactly what you mean specifically because of the color coding. But despite that, I still don't think higher tiers need to be introduced to the game, simply *because there's no need for that*. And that's what imo would be better argued about than whether it could or could not be considered being called "exotic". Overally I agree with that person (and at the same time disagree with you) about color coded tiers, BUT I disagree that it's a sufficient reason for introducing higher tier of runes "to match the pattern" (which in turn means I agree with you about not adding that to the game). Now based on that I think that talking about that naming/color coding system is mostly irrelevant, because if the consensus of this whole "debate" would be that runes/sigils follow the same gear tiering, it would NOT suddenly change your (or mine) mind about higher tiers not being needed in the game. The same is probably true for the "opposite side", where proving it's not the same naming/tiering scheme won't change their mind about wanting those "stronger, pink-ier upgrades". Sure, might be wrong, but I think we shouldn't really hang onto the naming schemes and focus on the fact that higher tiers are simply **not needed**. Yup, that's all. > TL/DR version: > "lack" of an ascended/purple tier is not an argument for introducing it, True. And imo that's enough of the answer to the post you've linked as an example :p No need to debate whether it is the same grading or not, there's simply no need to add higher tier *either way*.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Just MAYBE the answer to the OP's question is that Anet boxed themselves OUT of a solution for Ascended Runes and Sigils. > > > That assumes that there should be an ascended version in the first place. My point was that, since ascended are something from normal gear progression, which runes/sigils _do not_ use, there needs not be a "solution" for ascended runes/sigils at all. > > > > So you don't think there is a 4th teir of runes/sigils because 'wording'? Um, OK. Maybe. I would think wording isn't really that significant a hang up if Anet were to add that 4th teir between exotic and legendary. >Again, there's no "exotic" tier. It's not just a matter of wording, it's the whole tiering system for runes/sigils working differently than the one for gear. Where the gear has 6 tiers (plus Legendary), the runes/sigils have 3 tiers (plus legendary). You can't just draw any comparison between those based on the fact that some tiers have the same colors assigned. The whole tiering system is completely different. This whole discussion seems really useless, but I'll still go in because apparently that's what ~~I~~ (<- smallest *strikethrough* I've seen) people do. GW2 uses color coded names to determine the gear tier and I don't see why we'd try to claim sigils/runes are any different from that. They're color coded just like regular gear and because of that, I'm prety sure you're wrong and there indeed IS an exotic tier. Just because some of the tiers were cut out, it doesn't make exotic tier any less exotic. That said, I don't see how it changes anything :no_mouth:

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > How about no? > > There's absolutely no reason to do it and you can stop pretending you want to "promote more thoughtful play" seeing how you also made a thread about "removing unblockables because nobody uses them on blocks and *that level of gameplay doesn't exist* " :neutral: > > Not to pick on you specifically, but ... > Is it too much to ask for something constructive from commenters? I don't see how that answer was any less "constructive" than your OP. Did I miss something there? You literally wrote that the gameplay level of people intentionally using unblockable skills against blocks doesn't exist so we should remove unblockable effect, but here you try to pretend conditions cancelling each other is a good way to promote thoughtful gameplay? By what logic? So it's not too much to ask for that -as soon as you make a valid argument for implementing your *idea* in the first place. For now -judging by your last threads- you just want to "remove stuff" from the game while using contradictory reasoning in each of them (which was also the point of me bringing up your "unblockable thread", in case you think I'm somehow picking on you specifically).

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can enjoy a class that is updated to the point where there no reason to play that class any more due to bad choose of the game makers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, that's why this isn't a problem. If you enjoy it and play it, it's because you chose it because of 'enjoy', _even_ if it doesn't meet your criteria of 'performance'. If you want to choose based on 'performance' or _whatever_ ... then you might make a different choice. Choice is the answer. Anet can't make the game to cater to all the class choice criteria you have so ele is always the answer for those criteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That the thing this game is no longer about choice in the class you play its become a very by the numbers in all of the game types because of elite spec and them only being add on to the core class. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's only because you choose to play the game that way. Not everyone has the same criteria to choose a class that you do. The only problem here is that your choices based on your criteria aren't the ones you prefer. Anet can't cater to you; this is EXACTLY the reason we have all the choices that exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You choose to have a use in a fight not the fact that the very system your playing in dose not focse you into a roll? I think you do not understand hard content or balancing realty. I think you may not understand the game that well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This game isn't designed around roles INTENTIONALLY and the threshold for success in 'hard' content is low enough that it allows players to make choices over a set of criteria that includes more than just 'performance'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... what is it that I don't understand about the game now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is now > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't make sense ... the game isn't designed so we need roles filled in teams to be successful in hard content ... even now. If it does, it's because you CHOOSE to play that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > See you don't want to recognize it ... but that's the beauty of the game. It's all about how you want to play; Anet has truly achieved this. > > > > > > > > > > Your right it was not designed around rolls but anet added them > > > > > > > > No, there is NO roles added in this game. If you play in a 'role', it's because you choose to build and play that way. This 'roles' is NOT something Anet imposed in the game design itself because you and a team can be successful and NOT make choices around being in a role. > > > > > > > > I mean, let's put a lid on this ... OK, even if there is game design around 'roles', it doesn't change the fact that Anet can't cater to what you think should be included in your choices for a set of criteria you want to apply. It doesn't change the fact that the threshold for success in 'hard' content is low enough that it allows players to make choices over a set of criteria that includes more than just 'performance' > > > > > > Your just opening for abuse of existing classes and things ppl find fun for new things and power creep / p2w. > > > > Again, that just depends on your criteria for making choices and how you CHOOSE to be abused by criteria not related to how you make those choices. If your criteria is 'fun' then other criteria don't matter. If those other criteria offend you even if your primary one is 'fun', that's not a problem Anet has to fix ... that's just an additional requirement that could affect your pool of possible choices. > > > > Swapping elements is as true as any other 'swapping' mechanic in this game because swapping elements DOES have a real impact on how you play and what you want to do. > > > > Trying to make this into a P2W argument is a non-starter because > > > > 1. Clearly, whatever level of P2W you want to claim exists, it's not going to change and it's not even going to get better; it's going to get worse. > > 2. Having limited choices based on 'performance' criteria existed from day 1, long before especs existed. > > > > If anything, especs EXPAND the pool of builds that satisfy multiple or complex class choice criteria players want to have ... so you are wrong when you imply that 'p2w' is somehow a negative impact on players making class choices. > > > > If GW2 is too much P2W for you, only YOU can choose how to spend your time playing games and what games you play; that Pandora's box was opened a LONG time ago. But that's not anything to do with Ele and how 'true' it's class mechanic is. > > You as a player can chose as much as you want but you cant make ppl play with you due to thoughts choose. This is a team base game and now a roll base game with limited space in groups. > > You can believe that you can do any thing you want in real life but real life has a way of wining out at the end of the day. Gaming / non real worlds are the same way. > > Ele lacks a mechanic its realty that simple. Apparently I might have misunderstood half of this thread, but I'm kind of confused how you seemingly keep arguing performance/role/f2p/p2w perspectives and then conclude it all with "ele lacks a mechanic". None of the previous statements -no matter how right or wrong- have anything to do with determining whether it's a mechanic or not. ...and it definitely is a mechanic. You might not like it, but it doesn't change that fact. > @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > _Why should a player not consider changing class if the class they play doesn't satisfy the way they want to play the game?_ > > > > > > Because they want to play that class. > > > > That doesn't make sense ... If someone plays a class, it MUST satisfy some criteria they have to make that choice. There is clearly something wrong with their own criteria if they choose a class that they have convinced themselves they want to play ... but don't like playing. Therefore, the idea they choose a different class isn't so unreasonable after all is it. > > > > I mean ... listen to yourself ... people WANT to play a class that DOESN'T satisfy the way they want to play the game. That's some new level nonsense right their. > > > > Oh and BTW, I 'ran' ele yesterday. > > Well not at all you can play a class for years and then anet updates in such a way to make the class no longer viable. This is what happen and its all due to anet putting the elite spec before the core classes. > > We are talking about 4? years before ele core was hit because of tempest and 6? for weaver. > > This is all on anet. ...and again you're arguing about performance (and nerfs to core class) which has nothing to do with a class having a mechanic.

How about no? There's absolutely no reason to do it and you can stop pretending you want to "promote more thoughtful play" seeing how you also made a thread about "removing unblockables because nobody uses them on blocks and *that level of gameplay doesn't exist* " :neutral:

> @"hobotnicax.7918" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > Apple and big player in gaming dont go together > > Prepare to be proven wrong in the following year or two ;) Isn't it great when people try to use their hypothetical hopes for the future as an argument? :)

> @"crazyhusky.2985" said: > or maybe "**Follow me**"? ^this is it

Kind of sounds like dredgion from aion.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > Sobx > > Not desired by whom? Some of the people blindly following an online ""guide"" for the top meta theoretical deeps squad comp? Never saw the problem when I had necros in my squad as long as they weren't slacking. > > You have to understand that if you are raiding and you got others who can do what you can do but better, then why bring necro? if the utility dmg and condi nec has is inferior in all ways why bring nec? Also true for vast majority of classes/especs/builds in the game, so not sure what point you're trying to make by pretending that's some kind of isolated case. "but something is stronger!" -cool, most people don't care as that content isn't balanced around strongest options. Which is exactly why I wrote what I wrote before. Format your post better please so it's clear which parts are quotes and which parts are your answers, I'm not going through that in its current form, just saying.

> @"Lily.1935" said: > Yes but not the first option. > > Here's my take. More options in adept master and grandmaster would be great with options that offer a real diversity of build choices. Traits were supposed to replace the complexity of gw1's skill system, which it never did. Not saying it has to or should, but offering more variety would spice up a lot of old builds and could even open up more core class options. ...but for that to be remotely true, first they would need to make a major rebalance patch to make each trait in their tier much closer performance-wise. Currently that's not the case, so not sure adding yet another underperforming (or overperforming to trample the currently existing ones) trait option would suddenly "increase build variety". Didn't you claim you keep going through content with the same build for the past few years (or something like that)? "just add another random trait" hardly seems like a solution for anything.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > @"ASP.8093" said: > > > > "I'm bad at this game, therefore it's impossible for anyone to be good at it." Uh-huh. Very convincing. > > > > > > Nice strawman. > > > > Not really, that's what you said in your first post. > > It's been ages, let me read it again ... Yeah, "it's been ages", so not sure why you're suddenly responding now with... this? > It seems quite a considerable leap from the text to your interpretation. I wasn't the one making that *interpretation*, but w/e, lets forget about that. What you said ("*I don't use x to fulfill its purpose*, so *that level of gameplay doesn't exist*") is perfectly in line with the other user's observation. Just because you can't use the skill to its full potential doesn't mean everyone else can't either. It's not even anything hard or out of ordinary. So it's not a leap at all (even moreso *a considerable* one), it's just what you've said. And it's wrong. > ... the good news is that you get to have another go! ?

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > > > Humans: Good or Bad? > > > > _**EXTREMELY TERRIBLE!!!!**_ > > > > Well, not necessarily. It all depends on how they're prepared. Hey, that's not how we prepare meals around here! https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1413339/#Comment_1413339 > @"Fire Attunement.9835" said: > RULE NUMBER ONE > We do NOT eat the sentient creatures of Tyria.

No and you're confusing "opening more build paths" with "just let me use more traits at the same time". All you achieve is power creep, nothing about that "opens more build paths". ...and the same about "optimizing builds better". It's not optimizing, it's just packing everything at the same time into one ""build"".

Soooooo we're repeating this thread? https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/119910/impossible-for-new-players-raids/ It's not tedious to learn, if you want to learn and get into raiding you will. If you don't want to learn, then you have noone and nothing to blame. "KPs bad in low pop" -maybe, but then again maybe not. Seeing how all it does is providing the way to distinguish players that are experienced/inexperienced (not a fool-proof method, sure, but it's... something), I'm not sure not having kps would somehow make anything better. You'd get into raid party, instantly show you don't know what is happening and get kicked. You lost time and learned nothing, party lost time and need to "rng in another player". Not a fan of KP, but it seems that the problem isn't so much KP as it is player attitude. You want a new player squad? Make one. You want no kp req chill squad? Make one. You want training squad? Read up and make one or wait for others to make one. KPs don't really seem to be the problem, they just seem to be *the thing that helps people get into their respective raiding squad according to their preferences*. Unless your preference is just to get carried, then huh, no comments. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Aridon.8362" said: > > I disagree with you. It's not that tedious to learn > For you. Rather obviously, the current raiders are mostly those that do find it okay. Because those that thought otherwise more often than not never became the raiders in the first place. If people aren't willing to learn, there's pretty much nothing you or anet can do to make them want to learn. > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"kamikharzeeh.8016" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > There’s a difference between players offering to teach you and expecting all of them to teach you. > > > > > > > > > > Board games are also very different as players are not driven for rewards compared to those doing raids/fractals. Progress for board/card games is nonexistent in the sense that you’re simply playing the game whereas progress in fractals/raids can be slowed or even halted with having new players. > > > > > > > > I don't expect all of them to teach me. The teaching doesn't happen enough. If I'm wrong the raiding community would grow. And I'm completely fine with being wrong. > > > > > > You’re assuming that the reason that the raiding community isn’t growing is because veteran players are not teaching new players every chance that they get. You’re wrong. > > > > but i think he's partly correct, still. > > > > He’s not. Veterans raiders are often teaching in the training guilds/discords. There’s even a training event going on if you go to Reddit. True, you're correct and the person you've answered to is just not. There's plenty of resources, guilds and even ""random"" squads that are willing to teach the players. Not 24/7? Sure. But nobody is bound to be some kind of "on duty teacher" because the new player isn't willing to read up or watch a video. Claiming that raids aren't growing because of veteran players is some... bold claim to make.

> @"Crackers.9628" said: > This discussion is pointless as both of you ignore whatever you want, make up things order to make a point, and shift goal posts continuously to win an argument. What did I ignore before this claim? How did I "shift goal posts continuously"? I don't see it. > If I was toxic I would not make this thread. Well, we can see you instantly start namecalling people in this thread if they dare saying anything you dislike/disagree with. But sure. >90% of your arguments are completely fabricated. Like what? I base what I said on 2 people in this thread: you and the guy you confirmed was the guy opposing you. Notice how all you do in this post is just throw some generalized accusations with no substance at all. ...ah and you're the one that change the versions of the story here. First you say "you were roaming and got killed, so you went back and killed him", then you flipped it into "you were dueling and got killed, so then you killed him back in his duel". If anyone makes up the story as the thread goes, it *seems* to be you tbh. _____________________________ You don't want people to trashtalk you? Report and block you. Easly solved. You don't want people to drop siege on you? Don't stay on the ground. Solved. (but *as a siege-non-dropper* I still don't understand what's so triggering in this action, who cares? Why?) You don't want people from your own server mysteriously unite against you? Stop interrupting duels. Solved.

> @"Crackers.9628" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > Ok.., hold on a second here..... > > > > First you state you were roaming: > > > @"Crackers.9628" said: > > > I was roaming as thief. Some thief killed me and started jumping and dropped siege on me. Naturally I went back and killed him this time, only for someone on my own server to start trash talking me, calling me kitten, noob, he will transfer to farm me, etc. He has in the same guild as the thief I killed. > > > > > > The thief came back, and because my server mate stood on me, the thief could track my stealth and killed me. Then of course more trash talk and dropping siege. > > > > > > Of course the toxicity is rampant from other servers, but how are people so awful they literally grief their own teammates? Actively helping enemy server kill your own server. > > > > > > > Then you state you were dueling: > > > @"Crackers.9628" said: > > > > @"BadBrain.2195" said: > > > > > @"Crackers.9628" said: > > > > > I was roaming as thief. Some thief killed me and started jumping and dropped siege on me. Naturally I went back and killed him this time, only for someone on my own server to start trash talking me, calling me kitten, noob, he will transfer to farm me, etc. He has in the same guild as the thief I killed. > > > > > > > > > > The thief came back, and because my server mate stood on me, the thief could track my stealth and killed me. Then of course more trash talk and dropping siege. > > > > > > > > > > Of course the toxicity is rampant from other servers, but how are people so awful they literally grief their own teammates? Actively helping enemy server kill your own server. > > > > > > > > > Funny thing, cause you weren't roaming but just ganking duelers at duel spot :) > > > > If you jump on dueler and interrupt fights what do you expect, we gonna be happy? > > > > Our guildmate got u in 1v1 then you ganked him, sieged and jumped, that's where everything started. > > > > Why you wont say a thing about trying to gank him later for nearly 1.5h and being mad? > > > > > > > > > > For the second time, they were not kitten dueling you kitten. I was dueling someone and they ganked me. > > > > > > Jesus christ do me a favour and go away instead of defending these dirt bags. > > > > > > Edit: just realized you are this trash. I literally switched maps after 15 mins because you kept griefing everyone. Don't make up any stories. > > > > > > > Now I don’t have any skin in the game but it would seem that @"BadBrain.2195" has a more likely scenario. Not to say that ‘ganging people at the duel spot’ is wrong, but complaining about retribution is.. well to quote @"Sobx.1758" ’hypocritical’ > > 1. How do you think I find duels? By roaming? > > 2. In the scenario I ganked someone when they were dueling. Which means I attacked someone on the other server. PvP, WvW, is any form of "retribution" warranted against someone attacking an enemy player? > > You people are holding hands above each others head. Just stop sieging people, stop whispering them, etc. No need to come on the forums and make up stories to defend each other. Nobody is "holding hands above each others head" here, you might want to stop with your conspiracy theories, because not only I have nothing to do with those players you try to connect me with, but also I've **literally** never put a siege on anyone (mainly because I don't see the point). It seems you want to try and claim you can do whatever you want in wvw, which is fine. But then... you don't want others to do whatever they want? If you interrupt people's duels, you can expect retribution, isn't this just logical? You might think it's unwarranted or unfair, but that doesn't matter. The overal (and well known) consensus is to not interrupt duels in the known dueling areas and if you go against it... Well, don't complain that people treat you like you apparently treat them. If you want to gank people and find fights during roaming then avoid dueling areas, that's all. If you decide to keep interrupting people there, then imo you're the one being the problem here, not people that try to protect them. Before you dish out another one of your theories: I'm not even dueling in those areas, I just don't like the concept, but I understand why people enjoy it (not a rocket science). I just don't touch them, because why would I even pretend it's a valuable fight for me? It's not. And btw I don't understand why anyone would be so offended by the siege drop (again: I'm never did that, I don't see the point). If you're so worked up by it, just get up and you won't have an opportunity to be *so offended* by a bunch of pixels. Unless, you know, the point is to actually complain on the forum that people don't behave like you want them to behave while you actively interrupt set up duels in *well known designated* (by players themselves) dueling areas. At that point you're just willingfully creating your own problems.

> @"Crackers.9628" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Ooooooooooh so OP did something he considers toxic, someone did the same thing back to him and now he's on the forum complaining about people doing toxic stuff that he does himself as well. Great thread, had fun reading all of the 6 relevant posts in it. > > Yeah.... I don't really switch servers to grief my own server mates. Anyway, were you the deadeye from that group? Nah, I'm not, I'm just reading this thread and you seem to be a bit hypocritical here.

Ooooooooooh so OP did something he considers toxic, someone did the same thing back to him and now he's on the forum complaining about people doing toxic stuff that he does himself as well. Great thread, had fun reading all of the 6 relevant posts in it.