Eekasqueak.7850

Taimi's more likely to put herself into a golem body like Blish I think.

I mean Aurene gets bigger as she absorbs magic and she's the best hint we have of Elder dragon development so far.

Taimi will probs end up getting herself stuck in a golem body.

Eeh if he shows up it will be in the same way as Dhuum. I doubt the very minor presence of a handful of his minions on a small chunk of land in the ocean will have much bearing on the plot either.

I don't think Anet even knows what to do with the DSD yet, we're likely to not see them for awhile if ever.

He really dwarfs every dragon we've seen except for Primordus who we've only seen the head of.

How Common are liches even? Like full on at the same level as Joko ones. I can think of maybe three off the top of my head.

I can see the next episode starting with some kind of grand celebration kind of like how the core story ended. She will probably be there.

An achievement for getting the whole set would be nice.

> @"Gambino.2109" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > My only complaint about the story is how quick they brought her back, but overall I thought this was a perfect end to this season.

>

> I mean.. considering you had to wrap up the fight with the dragon.. I don't think they had room to squeeze aside some way to bring her back with time invested heavily on it.

>

> The only disappointment was that it was predictable.. but I mean that also makes people feel clever =p

You're not wrong, they kind of wrote themselves into a corner with having her 'die' in the first place. Maybe it was just for the Jesus parallel though.

Man the transformations kind of make me want it even though I don't use greatswords.

What if the person he loved who he killed was just Glint? I mean she was his daughter.. Given what we know now, he's understandably upset. I took the mother line more as him returning to this mother figure now that he's dead. Like maybe she's in the mists somewhere?

Aurene became literal crystal dragon Jesus.

I think it has something to do with how the forgotten tried to cleanse him, it must have only cleansed a part of him that got partitioned and the torment is the part that is usually in control.

> @"ThatOddOne.4387" said:

> > @"Alchimist.4738" said:

> > > @"ThatOddOne.4387" said:

> > > Once more the more interesting parts of the episode were the environment and reasoning behind that - The Underworld, Fissure of Woe and Melandru's Domain - Rather than anything to do with dragons.

> > >

> > > Solid episode but the hype wasn't worth it, I won't say I am disappointed but I will say I am neutral and that's not what I wanted to be.

> >

> > The Underworld is for Zhaitan, the Fissure of Woe for Balthazar, and Melandru's Domain for Mordremoth, of of them have had their magic drained by Kralkatorrik. We also know that the human gods parallel the dragon's magic, which explains why some of their dominions were pulled by Kralkatorrik.

>

> No?

Yes.

> @"Sajuuk Khar.1509" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> >also will they start removing branded terrain with season 5?

> I doubt we will see a change on any existing maps since MMO maps are always "time locked" to the point of the story they were made for.

>

> We may see a future map that is in branded territory now become "unbranded" as part of the thing to show Kralk's magic slowly vanishing.

They changed maps in season 1, I think they mentioned doing some more of that.

> @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > Some interesting things I noticed, Kralkatorrik said "mother" when he died.. does that mean that elder dragons have a progenitor? Also what if his kinder side was brought out when the forgotten tried to cleanse him- it didn't work but it created this duality that we see between him and his torment. Just some things to think about. I think the next season will involve at least partly helping Zaeim with the whole stabilizing Elona situation.

>

> This was right after he tossed out the otherwise unexplained "I only hope you never have to kill what you love," too. My takeaway is that we're supposed to see him as a much older and tireder Aurene, who was also forced to slay his progenitor and take her place after she went bad/mad/however they're presenting the destructive impulses now.

That doesn't explain how he called her the first of her kind though.

My only complaint about the story is how quick they brought her back, but overall I thought this was a perfect end to this season.

Oh another thing, did anyone else notice the hi tech looking city backdrop? During the finale when Aurene is ascending before shooting off into space.. Also the new Legendary great sword seems to be based on this ascended state. Despite not ending on a conventional cliffhanger this episode opened up a lot of questions- also will they start removing branded terrain with season 5?

I will say though, I don't understand the episode's title any more after finishing it.

It was a bit sudden.. but it makes sense in hindsight I suppose, despite the weak-ish start though the episode overall was amazing.

Some interesting things I noticed, Kralkatorrik said "mother" when he died.. does that mean that elder dragons have a progenitor? Also what if his kinder side was brought out when the forgotten tried to cleanse him- it didn't work but it created this duality that we see between him and his torment. Just some things to think about. I think the next season will involve at least partly helping Zaeim with the whole stabilizing Elona situation.

Please no.

Rarest thing I got was one of the filtration device helmets.

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > >That’s not dishonesty. You’re misusing the word.

> > > >

> > > > >By your usage of the word, State-run lotteries are dishonest. Raffles are dishonest. The McDonald’s monopoly game is dishonest. Those card packs that may contain a rare card are dishonest.

> > > >

> > > > >You’re labeling it as dishonest because there’s RNG involved and one side stands to benefit from it.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you elaborate on that? Because I made a very clear and logical argument here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sorry but cutting out some of previous quote to narrow it down some. I also have to agree I don't think dishonest is valid. When I buy keys, and it's normally for cash not conversion, I know what I bought. I just bought keys that equal however much I spent. No randomness there. I understand that key will then combine with another item I did not buy with cash that will grant me a random experience. So again I am fully aware of what I bought. I have never felt that was dishonest, I know all the way thru what I am buying. If I choose to pay for that random experience that was my choice, I wasn't conned into it. In some cases I have sat on keys for a while so in reality if you break it down that way there is no randomness in the original purchase at all. I bought a key that is worth $1.56. Whether or not I do something with it from there is on me. But we all know the purpose of the key it to open the BLTC so we will leave that there.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now back in the day when we couldn't preview I think I would agree a bit more, but even then, I still knew I was spending $20-100 on a random experience, but I still choose to do it. When I don't want that randomness, I just don't buy keys. For it to be dishonest they would need to say you have to buy this thing but we aren't telling you what it is and you really don't have to.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now let's go the other way for a second and look at something not guild wars. Lets say it was a new game and the only way you could level up and grow stronger was by buying random loot chests. You still don't have to play, walk away from the game. You spending money is what empowers yourself, choose not to transact with them. They go out of business.

> > > > >

> > > > > This would be a whole different discussion if this was something like you need to buy loot boxes to get your medicine for an illness you have.

> > > >

> > > > Keys by themselves are not the item you really bought. People do not buy keys because they want to see a key icon in their inventory. If you don't use them correctly they will stay as an item with 0 value in your inventory and you will be spending 1.56$ for 0 until you open a BLC and get the item you bought the key for. Still, I respect your choice for buying the key knowing what it may or may not contain as much loot as its worth. I also respect your choice for throwing your money into the sea or burning it willingly but my points here are:

> > > >

> > > > 1- There are some inexperienced players who will buy the keys and get completely worthless items. These players won't get their money's worth and will feel betrayed/robbed.

> > > >

> > > > 2- If Anet puts an item for sale. There has to be a way to buy this item with a known X price. Loot boxes does not allow this kind of transaction and instead it gives the item a random chance to appear within the the box. This will make players who want this item buy multiple boxes to get it and buy doing that they will end up recieving many items they don't need and spend more money than the value the item they wanted.

> > > >

> > > > I myself am against gambling altogether for many reasons but I will try to make suggestion in order to reduce the negative effect of lootboxes:

> > > >

> > > > 1- A BLC must contain at least an item which have equal (or more) value than 1.56$ or its equivalent of gold/gems. Selling players a box which has sometimes almost 0 value is nothing but robbery. The example of random mount packs is a bit better than the BLC. At least you will always get your money's worth when you buy one.

> > > >

> > > > 2- Make all BLC items tradable so players won't have to buy multiple keys in order to get what they want. I am not against making rare drops but if a player wants that rare item the cost to get it from a lootbox will be far too high and he will end up getting (buying) many items he did not want to recieve.

> > >

> > > What is worthless that comes out of the BLTC? Nothing, everything that the chest drops can also be bought separately, so everything in that chest has a value...maybe it has no value to YOU, but it does have a value to someone...so your argument there is false. Whether or not you receive something you wanted or didn't want is besides the point, it all still has a value to it, and that item doesn't have to be equal to the value of a key either, it only needs a value, even if that value is $.10, it's a value.

> > >

> > > Also, since you're personally already against gambling for other reasons, that makes your opinion biased(which hopefully people picked up on when you stated that), that doesn't mean it's not valid, it just means it comes with a bias against loot boxes already and no matter what anyone says about them you will have a negative opinion. You would probably still have that opinion even if I told you they don't mean the U.S. legal definition of gambling either.> @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> > > > > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> > > > > > > Oh look, our country is gonna become a nanny state if this passes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What's next? You people are gonna need the government to tell you how to raise your families? Balance your checkbook? When to have kids? Good grief.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let's be honest it probably would be better for a lot of people if the state could balance your checkbook and whether you are allowed to have kids

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, so then we can hear people complain about how said kids can do NOTHING for themselves and people have little to no experience compared to our grandparents/great grandparents etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > That's an embarrassment. We are essentially saying, we the people, can't do anything for ourselves. Period.

> > > >

> > > > I think you're conflating two ideas here. No not everyone should be held in check and should be nannied.

> > > > But their are people for who this would help.

> > > > Their are already people who can't really do things by themselves so why not help them.

> > >

> > > Why not help them? Have you ever heard of Charles Darwin and evolution? Those that can't help themselves fall under this category, we're tampering with natural selection here, as harsh as that may sound. Especially if as they say addiction is a disease, wouldn't we want to weed that disease out of our DNA?

> >

> > You don't seem to understand how natural selection and evolution works apperently.

> >

> > First, most addictions don't decrease the odds of reproduction. A sex addiction is even favored as it increases one's offspring.

> >

> > Secondly, did you know that natural selection favors the poor and uneducated in this world? So we should stop going to school I guess?

>

> Let me put it this way then...there are those that need help, and those that don't, I don't put addicts in the category of those that need help. Drug addicts usually either end up dead from an OD or they build up a tolerance, gambling addicts can end up destitute, with no family, home, money...nothing, etc., etc.,. Let the addiction run it's course, there must a valid reason people get addicted to things.

>

> As for the poor and uneducated being favored in natural selection, just because their populations keep expanding doesn't mean they're being selected over the intelligent and those able to live comfortably...all it means is they reproduce more often, they still end up with a shorter life span, less food to eat(more starvation). The argument goes both ways, and that isn't really what this is about, it's about you saying some people need to be nannied, and I'm saying they don't. Let parents parent, and if the parent refuses to parent, then what ever their child turns into is not my problem to prevent or fix(and don't even go down the road of criminal behavior...that's not what we're talking about).

Humans evolved to be cooperative as a social species, your ideas about social Darwinism are a joke.