Stramatus.5219

It would be cool to see them do something similar to how they were in GW1, perhaps making The Marketplace (expanded into portions of Wajjun Bazaar), and perhaps an expanded Kaineng Center city maps with most of the rest of the city being explorable. They can really work better with the verticality of the city too in GW2. Just think, the top of the tallest shanty tower to the lowest depths of The Undercity. The idea of a highly urbanized explorable region with multiple maps and cities/outposts within would be a refreshing change.

Most people hated Kaineng City in GW1 because it was a pain to navigate, but I think there was a certain feel and atmosphere they evoked when you played in it and through the story and side quests and it remains one of the more memorable areas as a result, for me.

This is the kinda crappy question that led to paying for templates.

To OP, you clearly don't understand the concept of what maintenance mode is. In your examples of LOTRO and EverQuest, both are still in active development.

EverQuest releases an expansion annually with it's 26th expansion coming out in December. I personally quit playing around expansion 7 or 8 which would have been 2003 or 2004. But hey what do you know, they still are releasing content.

LOTRO literally just released a new expansion a couple weeks ago and has had other expansions and dlcs before it.

These are both actively developed. By definition, maintenance mode means there is NO active development of ANYTHING.

> @"Kalavier.1097" said:

> A: The charr called Ascalon their hunting grounds, IIRC, and it's never referred to as their "homeland", but instead as Iron Legion's territory. I can't recall many comments about Ascalon being homeland to the Charr, just that it was the Charr's territory before humanity kicked them out and claimed it.

>

Eh? It's in the cinematic if you create a Charr character. Many Charr NPC's refer to it as their "homeland", as does the very first heart NPC in the Plains of Ashford.

Lol. GW and GW2 are not even remotely similar games. How do you "combine" them?

In GW1 and lore writings it was very clear that Ascalon shielded other realms in Tyria from the Charr. Perhaps a bad analogy, but reminds me of Gondor shielding much of Middle-earth from the bulk force of Mordor.

I think my problem is that as someone who mained an Ascalonian Human for as long as GW2 has now been out (2005 to 2012), I felt very little to no ties to being a Krytan in GW2. And indeed the personal story Dead Sister branch allowed me to state to Logan that my GW2 character was "Ascalonian and damn proud of it." or something like that. Yet there is really no mechanism within the human side of the story to effectively play my character as Ascalonian. I find that to be overall rather jarring. Especially since I tied my toon as a descendant of my GW1 toon (hall of monuments, linked accounts). It would stand to reason that my toon would perhaps view the conflict somewhat differently, but throughout the story acts as a Krytan.

Meanwhile the Charr became a playable race and the double whammy was that not only were Ascalonians completely diminished as something the player could be, the story was then reframed around "retaking a homeland" which did frame the Ascalonians in a different light than GW1, especially to a player base that might not have played GW1 or was otherwise familiar with the lore outside what's in the game.

> @"Rognik.2579" said:

> Nightfall's Sunspears were strictly human. Part of this was because GW1 was human-centric, with almost no non-human allies.

What does GW1 being human centric have to do with this?

The human nation of Elona was not a unified one when it came to governance and all 3 provinces were separately ruled though effectively allied unless they were warring one another (like in Nightfall).

The Sunspears were setup as an autonomous order that functioned as the defenders of the whole nation, but ultimately doesn't answer to any of the provinces.

Whether GW1 was human centric or not, it would stand to reason that a specifically human nation's defense force is made up of said humans of the nation.

> @"TehFicus.6189" said:

> asd

I agree

While I do agree there is some framework of "different perspectives" between the 2 games, that's used far too often as a cop out excuse to how far the differences became. I can go play GW1, I still have my Human Ascalonian character who witnessed the events. It's not just "perspective". Everything can be witnessed exactly as it was.

The Charr were quite obviously intelligent enough, but within Prophecies we never witnessed them even speak that I can recall. It wasn't until GW2 was announced in 2007 and then EotN released to bridge the two games that the Charr became far more than that, presumably in order for ANET to make them a playable race, and the inverse happened to the Ascalonians who were outside of Ebonhawke and the Ascalon Settlement largely reduced to cannon fodder ghosts. That's Adelbern's doing within lore, but that's ANET's doing within the game design to make Charr a playable race.

And that's what irked me as a GW1 veteran who played an Ascalonian Human. I'm all for the idea of evolution over the last 250 years, but surely you can see how a human player like me and I'm sure others feel like ANET really shafted the Ascalonians and by extension the players who selected that they were of Ascalonian ancestry within the personal story. You can say all humans are "Krytan" now, and while that's true that that remains the last human nation in Tyria, the Ascalonians are still there. Maybe not as a nation, but they still live and it's about time they stop getting kicked while they're down whether it was The Searing, the invasion, then the damn Foefire from their own king, and then the narrative direction that existed at the beginning of GW2 that painted Charr as simply "retaking a homeland" which in lore is completely wrong, but had certainly influenced the playerbase's perspective on the matter and at least back in the day, a perspective largely positive toward the Charr and negative towards the Ascalonians in past interactions I had had with folks on the subject in years past.

> @"Kalavier.1097" said:

> As for the "dolyakcrud of retaking the homeland." I don't recall the charr in GW2... ever talking about Orr, or Kryta. They only say that in regards to Ascalon. And guess what, there is no evidence they planned to use the searing on Kryta or Orr, especially since they were totally crushing the Orrian military without real effort. You could suspect they may have had it ready to use in Orr because there are searing cauldrens there, but we don't know that they planned to use them.

I could be forgetting as it's been a long time since I've played it, but I could have sworn the Bonus Mission where you play as Saul D'Allessio showed Searing cauldrons? Then again, maybe not. Like I said, I don't remember. To suggest they weren't going to use them is plausible, but they had them there (confirmed for Orr at least) regardless. It was always an option. Considering at the time that the campaign became one of human eradication, I wouldn't put it past them.

> Charr don't feel sorry/hate the searing, but they also don't want to use it again. Hell the searing cauldron in Ascalon, you have a CHARR wanting it destroyed, broken apart and melted down rather then leaving it there, even "drained" of power. It's a priory human who wants it to remain intact.

>

Is that part of the Charr personal story or perhaps NPC dialogue I missed in that area of Iron Marches?

> Likewise, why would they feel sorry for it. It simply broke the wall. Yes it killed people and damaged the land, but it didn't cause mutations or horrible suffering. It was a weapon used to break the defensive line of a foe. Hell, from their perspective, Adelbern did far more damage to his own people with the foefire. The searing just killed you, or didn't kill you. (And Adelbern was shown to be mad in early post-searing, trying to murder a Krytan who was there simply to offer help).

>

What? The Searing completely blasted and destroyed all of Ascalon. It didn't just "break a wall". The land was completely scorched, the rivers and lakes dried up or turned into a purple ooze. Plantlife was all but destroyed throughout the entire land-area of Ascalon. Presumably hundreds or thousands (not sure what the population number of the kingdom of Ascalon would have been) were killed. And all throughout Ascalon (in GW1 at least) are Searing crystals embedded into the land, some bigger than others. Not sure why you are completely downplaying what the event was.

As for Adelbern and the Foefire. I will agree that to the people of Ascalon it is a fate that is ultimately worse than death. Adelbern and the Foefire will get no defense from me.

> The Charr and Ascalonians saw each other as invading foes hell-bent on their destruction. The searing was a major blow against the Ascalon lines, allowing the Charr to finally start taking the upper hand. Hell, if we really want to look at it. The Charr are the single race that has stood up against humanity's expansion and pushes, fought back, and took back their area. Did they do horrific things? hell yes. But don't dare be screaming about how the Charr are the evil ones if you fully support the idea of humanity pushing the Charr back out of Ascalon, slaughtering or forcing them to retreat.

I'm not at all saying the humans are without fault here. It would be one thing if they settled the lands below the Great Northern Wall and left it at that, but they didn't. They expanded north well beyond the wall and forced Charr out. No one would say the humans are without their own faults in this conflict. The issue is the Charr escalated the conflict big time. Ultimately Ascalon was reduced to a smoldering heap of scorched earth, and then the outcomes of Orr and Kryta were changed forever.

Edit: Another thing. What's up with those war plans on a war table in the Black Citadel that is clearly a map of Queensdale and the gate of Divinity's Reach?

> @"RyuuChi.1463" said:

> > @"Loesh.4697" said:

> > Considering how you started your last post you have literally no room to talk about strawmanning, and this post isn't helping matters.

> My post started with hyperbole that my post further broke down as it went on. With all due possible respect, read the whole post next time instead of focusing on the first sentence, because I did explain my stance as I went on and actually addressed the points.

>

> No, bringing up the Searing isn't automatically racist because it's a historical event that characters in-game even go so far as to study, but if your Guildmates are, in-character as a roleplayer, are telling you to drop it because it's ancient history, it sounds to me less like offhand comments and more repeatedly using it to get some kind of pity or justification for some type of hatred. You don't just bring up the Searing out of the blue for funsies, there's usually a reason, and their guildmates reaction implies this.

No, the comment about guildmates refers to them (most of who I also played with in GW1), then making Charr characters in GW2 and perpetuating the dolyaksh*t narrative of "retaking a homeland" which they know better about lore than to keep spouting. You're focusing too much on The Searing and trying to paint me as just saying "hay guise hur dur the searing!!!11!". My point about that was to point out how far the Charr were willing to go on a campaign of genocide and the fact that they were willing to take that to lands outside of Ascalon that had nothing to do with the Ascalon/Charr conflict. They've since moved away from the Shaman Caste of the Flame Legion, but they still have built up a big technological industrial war machine and as a society continue to live in a very war-centric manner.

My point is that it feels like a huge disconnect to me that we as a human player character are not given the option to feel much more distrusting of the Charr considering that has been their history up until barely a few years ago in-game timeline. Everyone is "best buds" (Rytlock and Logan aside) and that doesn't feel realistic to me within the established timeline, putting aside my opinions on the Ascalon/Charr conflict. The whole history of the Charr is one of conflict within themselves or against others be it the Humans, the Ogres, The Grawl, or The Forgotton.

> @"RyuuChi.1463" said:

> Are you actually just mad that Anet made a race 3-dimensional instead of just "kill everything and everyone"? I didn't finish GW1 but I sure as hell played it, even got through a decent chunk of EotN before life got busy and the game's mechanics got too tiring to deal with. Not to mention, marching on Orr and Kryta could be entirely written as "you took our land, we take yours". It's entirely believable for a race that in GW2, is presented as harsh and militarily focused, this all just reads like you're stuck in the past because of your roleplay. And the only way the Forefire would work in the first place is if Adelbern was absolutely deranged (because what sane king would condemn his people to live through eternity as wandering, angry spirits?), and narratively speaking it's either have the Ascalonians eternally stuck as ghosts, or have them all be wiped out because the Charr had vastly superior firepower in comparison with the exception of Ebonhawke, or you pull something out your butt that lets the humans kill the Charr entirely which is just asking for actual bad writing imo. At least this way you still get to see Ascalonians in the game, even as enemies. And miss me with the "established lore" angle, there was effectively no lore about the Charr in GW2 other than they were big bad evil monsters who wanted to kill everything.

>

Ah I see I seemingly struck a nerve. Care to explain how everyone sitting in a kumbaya circle is 3-dimensional? If anything the various relationships and geopolitical standings between races became far less interesting in GW2 due to the shift to Elder Dragons as the threat.

> Yes, the treaty between Ascalon/Kryta and the Charr was recently signed (at launch) but you have NPC's like Logan and Rytlock who knew each other beforehand, or places like Lion's Arch where these racial tensions basically didn't exist, or in the various Orders where all the races had worked to move past such things well before GW2 launched. There's still plenty of Charr-human racism in GW2, hell there's an NPC in the Maiden's Whisper whose repeating line involves her insinuating she'll kill any Charr that comes near her with a meat cleaver (which is laughable in and of itself but that's another tangent). There's tension. But it's not prevalent in the story, because it'd be a nightmare to write out. It also helps that the story entirely revolves around killing big threats that no single race can handle on its own, and there's nothing that brings people together like a common enemy, this is a well established fact.

>

Yes I do believe I mentioned that being a likely limitation to game design and indeed a nightmare to write out all the possible branches. But unless community sentiment has changed, I believe people generally agree the Personal Story sucks.

> BTW, the Searing is effectively ancient history by now. It happened over 250 years ago, your character's great-great grandparents wouldn't even remember it, and Charr characters currently alive would have had no hand in what their great-great-great-great-great-great grandsires did. It's entirely understandable that, unless your character was actually alive and living as a non-infant in Ebonhawke by the time the ceasefire happened, to tell you to drop the racist angle in-character.

I like how you're trying to reduce my points to "racist". No it's just that I don't buy that there wouldn't still be great distrust and conflict between these 2 particular races that isn't portrayed well within the game and personal story unless you hunt for it.

While The Searing itself would be not ancient history, but at least history from long ago like how we'd view the 1700's, the conflict itself is not.

I can't speak specifically to the new patch as I largely quit playing after PoF. I apparently have some catching up to do.

I feel that the idea of "Charr victimization" was absolutely somewhat prevalent at the time of GW2 release back in 2012. I feel that part of the game design to create multiple playable races that allied with each other, including the Charr was to tone down the idea of their established nature as a race in lore and throughout GW1. What was a villainous race, hellbent on war and genocide of the humans (and other races before them) became instead a narrative of "retaking a homeland". Which in and of itself was wrong on a lore standing, but was nonetheless peddled relentlessly following the release of GW2 by players seemingly unfamiliar with the lore, or had never played GW1. Nevermind the fact that the Charr also marched on Orr and Kryta to presumably perform the same Searing upon those kingdoms as well. Am I to believe those are Charr homelands too?

Meanwhile, the remaining Ascalonians were diminished in stature within lore due to the Foefire which nobody within lore or the community would likely view in a positive light. Yet I'm sure the Charr feel the Searing was completely justified. And suddenly the narrative is the mad evil king (which he was towards the end) cursing his people and the land and the Ascalonians are largely reduced to being killable mad ghosts intent on killing everyone and everything. The exceptions of course being Ebonhawke and the Ascalon Settlement in Kryta.

As a more role-player type, the vibe I got from the game, the community, my guild at the time even was basically a big "eff me for being an Ascalonian", and "The Searing is ancient history, get over it."

And I would have been willing to do so, but up till now (presumably), the game did not at all do a good job of portraying these geopolitical relationships between the races and especially the Humans and Charr. A cease-fire and peace-treaty is signed, but throughout the Personal Story, you would think everyone is best of buds, not "we just barely signed this treaty". I realize that's probably a limitation of game design and how much you can possibly branch a multi-racial playable story-line, but I will say the Charr of GW2 feel completely different from the Charr of GW1 to me, and Ascalonians got the short end of the stick between The Searing, invasion, a king who goes crazy, refuses help, and ultimately curses them, and then a narrative that reduces the Ascalonians to little more than fodder for those who don't know their lore. And the dialogue I say, or feelings I have as a player interested in somewhat roleplaying my main human character of Ascalonian ancestry (which is a selectable option in the Dead Sister personal story branch by the way...) never matched how I feel my character would really react. I think that character would be very distrusting of the Charr, not best of buds with them.

> @"Imba.9451" said:

> So #MakeAscalonForgottenAgain?

>

> To me the point still stands, that humans built the greatest social, cultural and historical legacy in Ascalon. Before them, every other race has simply "been there" at some point, but noone actually did anything worth remembering. The Charr as a race have been in their social-evolutionary infancy, hardly able to stop infighting let alone build anything of cultural importance.

> So, judging not by "who was there first" or "who put up da best stompin'n'smashin'", the humans actually made best use of the land they inhabited/conquered. Imho, thats worth something.

> Charr took another few hundreds of years until they finally have been able to settle down and built something thats worth calling society. And they still could get some inspirations on how to build some nice-looking architecture :D

> Thats where the Jerusalem Analogy lacks. Ascalon ain't some form of "holy site", it simply is a case of Charr stubborness and fragile pride.

And this is why I feel the humans have an overall better claim to Ascalon.

The propaganda of the Charr in claiming it is their homeland is just not factually supported by anything. Did they occupy it for a time? Yes, but far less than the Kingdom of Ascalon. Were they originally from Ascalon (in order to claim it as a 'homeland')? No.

My feeling is that both games are apples to oranges. If you ask me which I like better, GW1 wins that one.

GW2 certainly evolved some mechanics like jumping, dodging, swimming, etc. but from a gameplay standpoint shares very little with GW1. As far as I am concerned, GW2 is not a true sequel to GW1, and thus that gameplay itch is only satisfied by GW1 which never got the sequel it deserved.

Do I like GW2? Sure, there are many parts of it I find fun, but i's just not the same.

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> In all honesty, the situation is pretty similar to Jerusalem and who "deserves" to own that holy city. There are many factions proclaiming rights, due to their ancestors having owned it at one point or another, so there's no clear "owner".

I do agree with that analogy. I just go down the path that says which race did ANET retcon? That would be the Charr. Every lore indication says that Ascalon was never their **original ** homeland. And if you look at the land area of Ascalon compared to the rest of the Charr territory north and east of it, Ascalon is a very small part of it.


I use a core Guardian (no elite spec) shouts based build personally.

Fits my playstyle which is largely around supporting my party.

Once you get used to playing the guardian, health pool becomes a non-issue.

EDIT: And I agree with the poster above. The way I play my guardian is largely around supporting my party.

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > @"Svennis.3852" said:

> > Didn't Ascalon originally belong to the Charr? Then the humans came in and kicked them out. The Charr ruled under the Flame Legion were super awful and evil, but I thought it was established as far back as GW1 that the Charr assaulted Ascalon in part to reclaim their homeland.

>

> No. Charr did conquer Ascalon before humans who conquered it from charr, but it wasn't theirs originally.

>

> Charr took it from others (given the hints we see, from grawl and dwarves) and claimed it for themselves. _Less than a generation later_, humans took it from charr and held it for over a thousand years.

>

> So the charr held Ascalon for less than a century.

>

> Sources:

> > No longer clamoring over the same territories, the unified Charr spread throughout the northern reaches of their homeland, and down into the lands east of the Shiverpeak Mountains. The Charr subjugated or destroyed any and all who dared defy them within their territories

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ecology_of_the_Charr

>

> > The grawl are native to Tyria, and Ascalon in particular. The earliest mention of them is found in early charr military tributes that predate the arrival of humans in the area. In these annals, the charr are always portrayed as victors with the defeated grawl pulling the charr commanders in great chariots. The charr dominated the grawl, forcing them into the Shiverpeak and Blazeridge Mountains and beyond, where they lived at a subsistence level.

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Planet_of_the_Grawl

>

> > "Somewhere in these depths rests the legendary Kathandrax's Crusher. Kathandrax Steelsoul was a great Dwarven hero who repelled the Charr time and again. The Charr came to view Kathandrax with respect, and his weapon with fear."

> https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Swithin_Nye

>

> And lastly, in Edge of Destiny novel, Logan, Caithe, and Rytlock stumble upon an ancient dwarven town underneath southern Ascalon not far from Ebonhawke and ogre territory (so somewhere underneath Fields of Ruin is most likely).

>

> Given all this, it is clear that Ascalon **truely** belongs to the grawl, not charr nor humans.

>

> #MakeAscalonGrawlAgain

>

> > @"Aaron Ansari.1604" said:

> > > @"Svennis.3852" said:

> > > Didn't Ascalon originally belong to the Charr? Then the humans came in and kicked them out. The Charr ruled under the Flame Legion were super awful and evil, but I thought it was established as far back as GW1 that the Charr assaulted Ascalon in part to reclaim their homeland.

> >

> > All of that was GW2 era. Back in GW1 we didn't even know that there _were_ separate Legions- as far as we were told, all charr had always been burning sacrifices alive. The only motive we were provided was that they were bloodthirsty and served at the whim of malevolent entities with a grudge against humanity.

> >

> > We were told in Prophecies that charr came from 'the north', and in EotN we got a region called the Charr Homelands (what GW2 renamed as the Blood Legion Homelands). Never any indication that they'd been in Ascalon before humans, although we did know they'd been launching raids into Ascalon for centuries.

> >

> > (Incidentally, you can argue that Ascalon originally belonged to the grawl, not the charr. Even the GW2 lore grants that they didn't start in Ascalon; they expanded into it and subjugated whatever races were living there beforehand.)

>

> It is technically from The Ecology of the Charr, which was released shortly after Eye of the North's release (October 2007 iirc); years before GW2. So one could argue it was GW1 era.

>

> Though it wasn't really stated to be grawl territory before the charr until Planet of the Grawl, which came out late 2011.

Thank you! The whole premise of Ascalon being "charr homeland" and the propaganda perpetrated by the game (and subsequently the players whose entry into the series was with GW2) of the Charr as "reclaiming a homeland" through the GW2 story/world has been nothing short of infuriating to me as a GW1 veteran. I get it somewhat as the saying goes history is written by the victors.

But my god, they have totally trampled on Ascalonians. It's like give me a paper cut. Ok now go ahead and pour some lemon juice on it. Ok...now why don't you rub some salt in too while you're at it for good measure. What makes it worse is as a player I have a chance in the Dead Sister path of the human personal story to choose my heritage as Ascalonian (and PROUD of it), and then never in the game since then have I been able to play through that heritage identity. It's sing and hold hands kumbaya with Rytlock who inexplicably (going on 6 years now) has Rurik's sword, go help the charr kill your old countrymen (yeah ok, I get it, foefire, but still), oh and here's a fractal where we make you a charr and go kill all the Ascalonians.

And not only that, in GW1 the Charr crossed the Shiverpeaks to attack Kryta, and the Crystal Desert to attack Orr which lead to Vizier Khilbron enacting the Cataclysm that sunk Orr. Am I to believe those are Charr homelands too? Give me a break.

Hello. Huge fan of the lore and universe around GW. Veteran GW1 player here from 2005 and off and on again GW2 player.

I'll preface this post by saying this opinion basically gets me in trouble with the entire GW2 community and I dont post this to hear the 1000 excuses I've heard over and over again over the years. I write this just as one man's opinion and experience (though I know of plenty in the GW1 community that agrees) and hope for some feedback directly from ANET.

As a human from Ascalon in GW1 and human player in GW2, the huge stumbling block to my enjoyment of GW2 is the Charr/Ascalon conflict and how that played out. I'm not mad about the charr winning that war as that made sense given the nature of how they just decimated Ascalon via the Searing. But what felt like a huge slap in the face to me the player are many of the designs that came to GW2 as a result.

1. Fractal where I am a Charr fighting Ascalon.

2. Dungeon where I help a charr kill the ghosts of my countrymen

3. Ruriks sword in a charr's hand for 6 years with no explanation.

None of which sits well with me as an originally GW1 player. Why?

In GW1 charr were warmongering beasts bent on conquering any and everything. GW2 spins a propaganda of "reclaiming a homeland" and yet we know in original 2005 GW1 they not only seared Ascalon, they crossed the Shiverpeaks and attacked Kryta (bonus mission pack), and crossed the crystal desert and attacked Orr leading to its destruction and the Cataclysm brought on by Kilbron to stop them. Am I to believe those are their homelands too? And now we are supposed to believe they are cute and cuddly cats and Ascalonian humans are the bad guys. I'm sorry but if there is one thing that felt so incredibly disrespectful to me the GW1 player and to the original GW1 pre EOTN it is this right here.

Why did ANET go down this path? I know one answer was to make them a playable race and not the bad guys anymore. I know another answer is that it's been 250 years so that conflict should matter anymore, and yet another that says "different perspective of the war" and of course the idea of unifying the races. I've heard them all.

But in the end, Ascalonians feel especially trodden upon by the game design and direction, and having the opinion I do of not liking the Charr and identifying with the Ascalonian humans as a player is met with much hostility in the GW2 community which will take every opportunity to tell me why my opinion and feeling is wrong. Problem is that I would guess the majority of people first entry into that lore is with GW2 and not from GW1, so its largely been futile to have that discussion.

And yet GW2 does provide one instance (human dead sister branch of personal story) where in Logans office I can identify as Ascalonian (and PROUD of it if I remember the dialogue correctly). And that's it. Why cant I identify more with Ascalon in the game. Why would the game assume I'm friendly and singing kumbaya with Rytlock. Heck, why does the game assume I dont want to be one of those separatists in Ebonhawke? There's just no further way for me to stay identified with that heritage.

Anyway, I get that the charr won the conflict, but I just feel that Ascalonian humans get especially trampled on and dealt an extra dose of disrespect in this game and I'm tired of GW2 community just generally trashing my opinions, my character's roleplayed Ascalonian heritage and dislike of the charr. It's like give me a paper cut, then pour lemon juice in it and rub it in salt while you're at it.

Maybe I am just too invested as someone who fell absolutely in love with the world and story and lore back in GW1. But it is what it is. I have never fully enjoyed GW2 from a lore aspect and this is a major reason (like 90 percent) why. At least within the GW1 community I know I am not alone in this thought.

Anyway, just interested in hearing really why ANET went down this path with Ascalonians and retconning of charr starting back in EOTN. Ascalonians are basically seen as the bad guys by everybody now, at least in my circles and you know what it makes me angry to this day 6 years after release.