Kittymarks - The derpy girl's comprehensive benchmark

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:

> It's hardly unfair. She's claiming to be an expert or at the very least a reputable source of information despite clearly showing herself to be unqualified. She's being compared to proper information sources because she's claiming to be one herself, thus exposing her to the higher quality standards expected of such people. Also, a person isn't going to have a consistent play level across every class in the game. You could have the best player in the world and they would still have things they're better at than others.

 

First of all, Kitty's not claiming to be an expert. She is not. She only benchmarks stuff with casual multiclass raider's skills, she's not even hardcore. Yush, Kitty has claimed that she's skillwise above average pug and that generally holds true unless Kitty crashes into a group of more skilled pugs. But then again, Kitty does have quite horrible luck with the pugs in fractals and raids.

 

"Also, a person isn't going to have a consistent play level across every class in the game." This is kind of a two-edged sword. Yush, it's true that Kitty's perhaps not exactly as good on every class. But various classes also require various amounts of skill to be played to same point from max. potential.

 

For example, condimirage and power holosmith have about same maximum potential (as per qT's measurements). However, Kitty reaches 81% of that when using somewhat similar rotation as qT and said rotation is relatively simple. Meanwhile, Kitty only reaches 71% of power holosmith's potential when trying to do that kit-swapping fingerdance between the photonforges like qT does. The rotation is way more complicated and with her skill level, she can't follow it to the letter. On a side note: Kitty also spent 1 hour just trying to practise those weaponswaps before starting the PHS's benchmarking, while she only game condimirage 1,5 practise runs (about 6 mins).

Pretty much the same with power daredevil vs power deadeye. Both have a very simple rotation, but while Kitty can reach 92% on power deadeye's braindead rotation, she could only reach 82% with power daredevil as power daredevil requires very, very accurate movement to pull off the same damage and Kitty's too slow thinker for that.

Also, when the builds require about similar level of skill to pull of the same performance/max potential ratio, Kitty's benchmarks actually follow qT's rather well. And like the examples above also point at, Kitty's quite consistently bad at the builds that require executing difficult rotation or movement.

So, here's indeed one major difference between Kitty's benchmarks and qT's: qT's are almost exclusively played to their maximum potential by top players so they always have the same performance/max potential-ratio (or well, it doesn't exist as a factor). Kitty's benchmarks also include that factor which automatically renders Kitty's benchmarks from "best possible" to "what a player at this skill level can do". Though ofc it also introduces some discrepancy in her results, but Kitty does try her best to keep it to minimum and thus keeps her awareness/mood/other irl-player factors similar during benchmarking sessions to avoid further dispersion between her results.

But also, when doing this kind of sub-optimal benchmarking, it wouldn't be easy to keep discrepancy much lower as Kitty dares claim that every person does have at least some difference of gameplay between various classes. And also, players with equal skill performance/max potential ratio for each class is nigh impossible. In that regard, Kitty does have the advantage of not maining any classes in any games she plays, but usually playing each class and build at least somewhat equally. (Since Frost Draco apparently knew Kitty for 4 years in her previous main game, he might be able to tell how insanely far Kitty takes that not-maining gameplay. Or just scroll to the bottom of Kitty's gameplay-channel's video list to see actual guide videos of Kitty soloing a leveling instance and 5 paths of a farming instance with every class, sometimes even various builds per class.)

 

If someone does go arguing against Kitty without providing numbers, though, she will argue back despite being not an expert. And she won't accept "because they said so and they know better" as an argument. Facts to the table, not arguments from authority.

 

> @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> One thing that I don't really get is, how are the guides even comprehensive.

 

Guides comprehensive? Kitty doesn't think she's mentioned word "comprehensive" anywhere outside her benchmark page and there it refers to how Kitty tests and publishes benchmarks for pretty much any class/type/weapon combo possible.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:

> > It's hardly unfair. She's claiming to be an expert or at the very least a reputable source of information despite clearly showing herself to be unqualified. She's being compared to proper information sources because she's claiming to be one herself, thus exposing her to the higher quality standards expected of such people. Also, a person isn't going to have a consistent play level across every class in the game. You could have the best player in the world and they would still have things they're better at than others.

>

> First of all, Kitty's not claiming to be an expert. She is not. She only benchmarks stuff with casual multiclass raider's skills, she's not even hardcore. Yush, Kitty has claimed that she's skillwise above average pug and that generally holds true unless Kitty crashes into a group of more skilled pugs. But then again, Kitty does have quite horrible luck with the pugs in fractals and raids.

>

> "Also, a person isn't going to have a consistent play level across every class in the game." This is kind of a two-edged sword. Yush, it's true that Kitty's perhaps not exactly as good on every class. But various classes also require various amounts of skill to be played to same point from max. potential.

>

> For example, condimirage and power holosmith have about same maximum potential (as per qT's measurements). However, Kitty reaches 81% of that when using somewhat similar rotation as qT and said rotation is relatively simple. Meanwhile, Kitty only reaches 71% of power holosmith's potential when trying to do that kit-swapping fingerdance between the photonforges like qT does. The rotation is way more complicated and with her skill level, she can't follow it to the letter. On a side note: Kitty also spent 1 hour just trying to practise those weaponswaps before starting the PHS's benchmarking, while she only game condimirage 1,5 practise runs (about 6 mins).

> Pretty much the same with power daredevil vs power deadeye. Both have a very simple rotation, but while Kitty can reach 92% on power deadeye's braindead rotation, she could only reach 82% with power daredevil as power daredevil requires very, very accurate movement to pull off the same damage and Kitty's too slow thinker for that.

> Also, when the builds require about similar level of skill to pull of the same performance/max potential ratio, Kitty's benchmarks actually follow qT's rather well. And like the examples above also point at, Kitty's quite consistently bad at the builds that require executing difficult rotation or movement.

> So, here's indeed one major difference between Kitty's benchmarks and qT's: qT's are almost exclusively played to their maximum potential by top players so they always have the same performance/max potential-ratio (or well, it doesn't exist as a factor). Kitty's benchmarks also include that factor which automatically renders Kitty's benchmarks from "best possible" to "what a player at this skill level can do". Though ofc it also introduces some discrepancy in her results, but Kitty does try her best to keep it to minimum and thus keeps her awareness/mood/other irl-player factors similar during benchmarking sessions to avoid further dispersion between her results.

> But also, when doing this kind of sub-optimal benchmarking, it wouldn't be easy to keep discrepancy much lower as Kitty dares claim that every person does have at least some difference of gameplay between various classes. And also, players with equal skill performance/max potential ratio for each class is nigh impossible. In that regard, Kitty does have the advantage of not maining any classes in any games she plays, but usually playing each class and build at least somewhat equally. (Since Frost Draco apparently knew Kitty for 4 years in her previous main game, he might be able to tell how insanely far Kitty takes that not-maining gameplay. Or just scroll to the bottom of Kitty's gameplay-channel's video list to see actual guide videos of Kitty soloing a leveling instance and 5 paths of a farming instance with every class, sometimes even various builds per class.)

>

> If someone does go arguing against Kitty without providing numbers, though, she will argue back despite being not an expert. And she won't accept "because they said so and they know better" as an argument. Facts to the table, not arguments from authority.

>

> > @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> > One thing that I don't really get is, how are the guides even comprehensive.

>

> Guides comprehensive? Kitty doesn't think she's mentioned word "comprehensive" anywhere outside her benchmark page and there it refers to how Kitty tests and publishes benchmarks for pretty much any class/type/weapon combo possible.

 

And that last sentence, describe literally every persons on this threads problem with you. We don't need you to do that. Especially because you are failing basic principles when playing certain builds. You can't benchmark somethin g properly without first playing it properly and understanding the class.

 

YOU, clearly don't understand most of the classes/mechanics you are trying to benchmark. There is a difference between benchmarking something, and filming you having a go at the golem a few times.

 

8 2min runs is no where near long enough to give accurate numbers on anything, especially condi builds. And there are some weapons that suck at applying condi's which don't need to be tested, for that reason. I.E. staff necro.

 

But idk why people are still responding to this thread. You don't listen to reason, and the people who come here with nothing but praise are as daft as their robotic comments portray. It would be best to let this thread die, and for people who put real work and thought into things to take up the most recent threads slots in the dungeon/raid forum. Which heavy casuals generally don't visit, outside of complaining that something is too hard.

 

You state that your mood/feeling lazy and etc becomes an issue, and thats exactly why your numbers are pathetic and not enough. There is a reason people spend all day at a golem benchmarking something before giving numbers. You are susceptible to the same things mentally as everyone else. So what makes you think that you are exempt from the standards this community has set in order to reduce the amount of variation in benchmarks?

 

I hate it when people come here expecting praise when they haven't earned it, talk about thinks they are clueless on, then argue with the people that are literally more reputable than they are, and act like they have done nothing wrong. Crybullies in essence.

 

You did this same thing in PWI on the assassin forums all the time. And every time this same general thread atmosphere ensued, because you simply don't listen, and just want attention. It's a thorn in my side, and you seem to think people just don't like you because "muh elitist meta". No. The problem is your overall attitude and your attempts to prove you are just as good as the other benchmarkers, when you don't even put in a tenth of the time, effort, and gold.

 

Do you know how much people spend on benchmarks? Hell singular qT members spend hundreds of gold per benchmark. And have literally single digit gold numbers to their name to give the community proper information. All to have people dismiss them because they are 'speed runners'. Speed runners they may be, at least they have earned their reputation as trustworthy.

 

Their are plenty of easy to play meta dps builds on their site, that people ignore, because it's not their favorite class at the time. For every zerk weaver, 80% of them could switch to power dps mesmer, condi tempest/weaver, power DH, or condi daredevil and get higher numbers. And groups would have no problem taking them. But they don't. Why? Because they are lazy, and think that any effort is good enough, just like this thread. If you aren't going to do it right, i'd rather it not be done at all. Condi daredevil is an old build that benchmarks higher than zerk tempest, but people ignore it because "muh power theif". You'd be surprised how many people still run staff when their is an overpowered build just a stat swap away.

 

They make bad decisions. And no amount of your bad, poorly researched benchmarks is going to change that.

 

P.S. Just because you test everything doesn't make it comprehensive. If you had never touched the word, there would be no criticism there. That's your fault, not theirs.

[Refia Montes.3205]

I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

 

Yush, "The kitten girl's comprehensive benchmark". Benchmark. BENCHMARK. NOT a guide. Comprehensive BENCHMARK.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> > I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

>

> Yush, "The kitten girl's comprehensive benchmark". Benchmark. BENCHMARK. NOT a guide. Comprehensive BENCHMARK.

 

Except only not, because these are not benchmarks, and they are not comprehensive. So you were dishonest on both accounts.

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > > @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> > > I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

> >

> > Yush, "The kitten girl's comprehensive benchmark". Benchmark. BENCHMARK. NOT a guide. Comprehensive BENCHMARK.

>

> Except only not, because these are not benchmarks, and they are not comprehensive. So you were dishonest on both accounts.

 

Kitty already argued about linguistics of word "benchmark". But some people sure like to stick to a word even if dictionaries say otherwise. Next.

[Myhr.9108]

Yes they are benchmarks, benchmarks relative to the real difficulty level of raids, which is quite lower than what some people profess, and the proof is that you can get carried.

What I find really interesting is all the "carry-shaming", as if getting carried was the worse mark of disrespect ever. I mean, in your raid group, you're free to select whoever you want, and kick the under-performing members. But saying no-one wants to carry is just being close-minded. You don't want to carry, good for you. But if I'm ready to carry, you bet I would be happy that people that I carry have some realistic Kitten goal to aim to instead of being utterly demoralized by their mediocrity compared to qT's benchmarks and performing even worse.

I know this because it's hardly something specific to GW2, it happened in a lot of MMORPGs I've played. But I must admit, the amount of elitism relative to the real difficulty of raids is incredibly off in GW2, I think it's the first time I've seen one of the speedrunning guild as the main reference, dps-wise.

 

And I find really incredible that most raid LFG do not even specify their dps requirements, just a number of LI. I mean, either there is a clear lack of information about what the basic dps-requirements are, or maybe the community is less regarding that what some people would like to make us believe.

[LadyKitty.6120]

> @Myhr.9108 said:

> And I find really incredible that most raid LFG do not even specify their dps requirements, just a number of LI. I mean, either there is a clear lack of information about what the basic dps-requirements are, or maybe the community is less regarding that what some people would like to make us believe.

 

Well, "since killing boss as fast as possible means less mechanics to survive thru", they want the best possible DPS, not just "enough" DPS. And they really don't want some damage mitigators to help peoples survive if that means less DPS. And it's not that uncommon with LFG that the commander doesn't have Arcdps and goes kicking the lower benchmark classes if things go south with best benchmark classes failing horribly.

And sure as hell they don't know the actual cleave DPS requirements of various bosses. (Kitty 's not sure if anyone else has gathered and listed the numbers to get the kill 30s before enrage. She has on her benchmark page).

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > @Myhr.9108 said:

> > And I find really incredible that most raid LFG do not even specify their dps requirements, just a number of LI. I mean, either there is a clear lack of information about what the basic dps-requirements are, or maybe the community is less regarding that what some people would like to make us believe.

>

> Well, "since killing boss as fast as possible means less mechanics to survive thru", they want the best possible DPS, not just "enough" DPS. And they really don't want some damage mitigators to help peoples survive if that means less DPS. And it's not that uncommon with LFG that the commander doesn't have Arcdps and goes kicking the lower benchmark classes if things go south with best benchmark classes failing horribly.

> And sure as hell they don't know the actual cleave DPS requirements of various bosses. (Kitty 's not sure if anyone else has gathered and listed the numbers to get the kill 30s before enrage. She has on her benchmark page).

 

People were gathering those numbers since raids were released. Before you even started playing this game to my knowledge. Please. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

The fact that in 2 years, you assume no one has already done this works shows how conceited you really are. And arcdps isn't the only meter available, and wasn't for a long time. Also, arc's interface wasn't always as clean and readable as it is now.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > > > @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> > > > I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

> > >

> > > Yush, "The kitten girl's comprehensive benchmark". Benchmark. BENCHMARK. NOT a guide. Comprehensive BENCHMARK.

> >

> > Except only not, because these are not benchmarks, and they are not comprehensive. So you were dishonest on both accounts.

>

> Kitty already argued about linguistics of word "benchmark". But some people sure like to stick to a word even if dictionaries say otherwise. Next.

 

benchmark :

Standard, or a set of standards, used as a point of reference for evaluating performance or level of quality. Benchmarks may be drawn from a firm's own experience, from the experience of other firms in the industry, or from legal requirements such as environmental regulations.

 

ref: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/benchmark.html

 

However we already have a set standard for said benchmarks. Somethign that has been set up for years even. And with the introduction of the golem they have only gotten better. You can argue linguistics all you like, but your argument is fallacious. The standards were already established before you came along. And so has the criteria, which you fail to meet CONSISTENTLY. You are an individual, not a guild like qT. Your attempts are riddled with errors you have fail to refine or make any attempt to correct.

 

-100% duration for condition builds

-100% crit for power builds

-a proper balance of condition damage > expertise, and condition damage taking priority when it produces higher damage than extra duration

-testing all weapons and their functions then choosing a weapon that is suited to this function

 

And the list goes on. They are not comprehensive, and they do not even come close to the standard that has already been set. Don't give me this subjectivist BS. You can call them what you like, and i will continue to say you are wrong, because you are. End of story.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @Myhr.9108 said:

> Yes they are benchmarks, benchmarks relative to the real difficulty level of raids, which is quite lower than what some people profess, and the proof is that you can get carried.

 

Wrong. Benchmarks in this context are what a class can do performance wise under optimal realistic circumstances. If you call poorly done rotations in the literal same exact setting as qT benchmarks "relative to the real difficulty of raids" then you are a blatant liar. They are done in the same environment, that has literally no pressure. There is nothing stopping them from being optimal, because there is nothing hindering her performance, except her performance itself.

 

> @Myhr.9108 said:

> What I find really interesting is all the "carry-shaming", as if getting carried was the worse mark of disrespect ever. I mean, in your raid group, you're free to select whoever you want, and kick the under-performing members. But saying no-one wants to carry is just being close-minded. You don't want to carry, good for you. But if I'm ready to carry, you bet I would be happy that people that I carry have some realistic Kitten goal to aim to instead of being utterly demoralized by their mediocrity compared to qT's benchmarks and performing even worse.

 

Being demoralized sounds like a personal issue. You haven't given anyone here a reason to care. Are you saying we should also gut all the raid bosses because people feel demoralized about taking damage or performing mechanics? Getting carried is bad, for any player that cares about their own personal skill level. if you are fine getting carried, you are saying you do not care.

 

And if you do not care, your words about the meta, or 'elitism' are worthless. And it completely invalidates all your statements about 'demoralization' earlier.

 

The way things should be done should not be predicated on the lowest common denominator. You are literally setting everyone up for failure, including the people you want to help. Why set a goal if that goal isn't gonna take any work to reach? You are literally telling people to aim low. It's downright disgusting, especially from someone who teaches others, and is constantly learning themselves.

 

> I know this because it's hardly something specific to GW2, it happened in a lot of MMORPGs I've played. But I must admit, the amount of elitism relative to the real difficulty of raids is incredibly off in GW2, I think it's the first time I've seen one of the speedrunning guild as the main reference, dps-wise.

 

Maybe you don't play enough MMO's bruh. Come back when you have 200+ MMO's under your belt. Very few MMO's have actual rotations a person needs to learn because the content is designed for clicking skills, not real time. And even then, I have the same issue i have now. People are bad, and refuse to acknowledge it.

 

Not a single one of these post you have made, have made me think you ever bothered to question if the statements you are talking about are actually elitism. They could simply be people who know better, voicing their opinions and observations. But that's impossible right?

 

Stop white knighting and actually make a coherent argument for once please.

[Myhr.9108]

Ho right, you need to have played 200+ MMO's to have the right to even say things. I'm sure you check that requirement, "bruh". I'll enjoy your 200 title long list, I'm sure, and be happy to cherry-pick every single one that isn't relevant to the present discussion, since it's the kind of argument you're enjoying.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

So many paragraphs while the only justification needed for Kitty's work is if she can raid with her builds and complete instances. She can. That's good enough. qt fans have their misguided crusade, let Kitty enjoy game the way she does. There is no reason for any hater present here to use her builds.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> So many paragraphs while the only justification needed for Kitty's work is if she can raid with her builds and complete instances. She can. That's good enough. qt fans have their misguided crusade, let Kitty enjoy game the way she does. There is no reason for any hater present here to use her builds.

 

This isn't a crusade, this is criticism. If you don't want it, don't post to the internet.

 

No one stated they will use a single build other than people like you. And no one said she isn't allowed to post as she likes. However if you choose to post, you also choose to be criticized just like everyone before you. No exceptions.

 

I am criticized, you are, and she is. No one is above it.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > So many paragraphs while the only justification needed for Kitty's work is if she can raid with her builds and complete instances. She can. That's good enough. qt fans have their misguided crusade, let Kitty enjoy game the way she does. There is no reason for any hater present here to use her builds.

>

> This isn't a crusade, this is criticism. If you don't want it, don't post to the internet.

>

> No one stated they will use a single build other than people like you. And no one said she isn't allowed to post as she likes. However if you choose to post, you also choose to be criticized just like everyone before you. No exceptions.

>

> I am criticized, you are, and she is. No one is above it.

 

Current 8 pages of what you call "criticism" is just misguided crusade. You are not the target of Kitty's work. It's the same as you going to vegan convention promoting meatballs.

[GrimmR.3541]

Kitty and her work / effort might get taken more serious if;

 

a.) She stops refering to herself in third person (simply doesn't work.)

b.) She stops hiding behind excuses like f.e “I don't know why I got ported“. She claims to be experienced on certain bossfights yet I still have not seen a single video of her where she doesn't fail mechanics.

 

So yes, up till now this actually leads to a pretty bad impression because she indeed get's carried by other players having to compensate / make up for failed mechanics and bad gameplay.

 

If you want to show how good off meta builds are able to perform, put more effort in.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @LadyKitty.6120 said:

> > > > @"Refia Montes.3205" said:

> > > > I mean, should I really point the fact, that the title has the word in it?

> > >

> > > Yush, "The kitten girl's comprehensive benchmark". Benchmark. BENCHMARK. NOT a guide. Comprehensive BENCHMARK.

> >

> > Except only not, because these are not benchmarks, and they are not comprehensive. So you were dishonest on both accounts.

>

> Kitty already argued about linguistics of word "benchmark". But some people sure like to stick to a word even if dictionaries say otherwise. Next.

 

From the 2 dictionaries which actually matter:

 

> a :a point of reference from which measurements may be made

> b :something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged

>

> a stock whose performance is a benchmark against which other stocks can be measured

>

> c :a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benchmark

 

> noun

>

> 1A standard or point of reference against which things may be compared.

> ‘the pay settlement will set a benchmark for other employers and workers’

>

> verb

> [with object]

>

> 1Evaluate (something) by comparison with a standard.

> ‘we are benchmarking our performance against external criteria’

- https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/benchmark

 

In both cases, your "benchmarks" fall short or are not good points of referance or comparison. Essentially what every single experienced player has been saying since page 1 of this thread. At least not in the way you want those "benchmarks" to be valid.

 

As I had said on page 1:

> the only thing these benchmarks really show is how easy or fast some classes and their dps builds work and how hard it is to master them. Which granted is quite useful (unfortunately with only such a small amount of practice runs, this is literally looking at how someone completely new would perform).

 

For anything more, they are far to crude and undeveloped.

 

Always make sure you understand what you are actually benchmarking. Saying a benchmark is for xyz does you no good if the methodology does not fit the desired result.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > So many paragraphs while the only justification needed for Kitty's work is if she can raid with her builds and complete instances. She can. That's good enough. qt fans have their misguided crusade, let Kitty enjoy game the way she does. There is no reason for any hater present here to use her builds.

> >

> > This isn't a crusade, this is criticism. If you don't want it, don't post to the internet.

> >

> > No one stated they will use a single build other than people like you. And no one said she isn't allowed to post as she likes. However if you choose to post, you also choose to be criticized just like everyone before you. No exceptions.

> >

> > I am criticized, you are, and she is. No one is above it.

>

> Current 8 pages of what you call "criticism" is just misguided crusade. You are not the target of Kitty's work. It's the same as you going to vegan convention promoting meatballs.

 

False equivalence. It would be the same thing as if i went to a vegan convention and passed out correct information about dietary nutrition I.E. not vegan propaganda.

Or better yet, I debunked vegans that were spreading propaganda.

 

If that's a crusade, then by all means im fine with that. We need a crusade on the amount of carebear and just plain wrong opinions propagated here. You seriously sound like the religious right anytime an atheist or secularist labeled a criticism. Persecution complex incarnate.

 

Notice not once have I said there is a certain way anyone should play. Why do you think that is? Because i simply don't care. However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun, or as the thing anyone who isn't a speed runner should strive towards, then yes I take issue with that. Especially when you haven't even proven you can play well, just mediocre at best.

 

It's like someone that says how easy football is to play, but can't throw or catch a pass.

 

As for "I am not the target". As soon as she posted in a public forum, everyone who visit it became the target. This was the most daft statement you could have possibly made. And even if that was the case, just because I am not the target 'audience' doesn't dismiss any criticism I have made. Nor does it debunk it. Maybe think up a better line of reasoning than "well it wasnt for you", when you are the crazy person yelling in the public square. Because that's literally the poor reasoning you just gave me.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

 

That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

>

> That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

 

QT fans? I never claimed to be a qT fan, nor has anyone else, you liar.

 

And qT has never claimed they are out to 'have fun', nor has anyone else advocating for the meta, and rigorous benchmarks. We advocate efficient, optimized play, not having 'fun'.

 

Maybe you should understand the argument before you cry about how toxic it is. It makes you look like a bafoon.

If playing meta builds stresses you out then don't. However she chose to stress herself out by spending time, posting all of these poor examples. And arguing with more knowledgeable people.

 

If you don't care, act like you don't care. If you don't want to prove your self, dont post something half baked claiming you already have.

 

Everything about this thread contradicts the persons claims made in it. This IS the stressful toxic environment you claimed she was trying to avoid. Why are either of you here?

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

> >

> > That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

>

> QT fans? I never claimed to be a qT fan, nor has anyone else, you liar.

>

> And qT has never claimed they are out to 'have fun', nor has anyone else advocating for the meta, and rigorous benchmarks. We advocate efficient, optimized play, not having 'fun'.

>

> Maybe you should understand the argument before you cry about how toxic it is. It makes you look like a bafoon.

 

This thread is not about optimized, efficient gameplay. Kitty progresses through raid with her stuff so it's a proof that you don't need to be fixated on numbers and rotations to kill raid bosses. As long she completes instances it is enough to show her way. It's not optimized? Of course it's not. But people in this game forgot that optimized gameplay is fake requirement created by people and forced by people.

 

And again, you are not the target for Kitty's work. Any talk about optimized, efficient gameplay is irrelevant here.

[FrostDraco.8306]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

> > >

> > > That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

> >

> > QT fans? I never claimed to be a qT fan, nor has anyone else, you liar.

> >

> > And qT has never claimed they are out to 'have fun', nor has anyone else advocating for the meta, and rigorous benchmarks. We advocate efficient, optimized play, not having 'fun'.

> >

> > Maybe you should understand the argument before you cry about how toxic it is. It makes you look like a bafoon.

>

> This thread is not about optimized, efficient gameplay. Kitty progresses through raid with her stuff so it's a proof that you don't need to be fixated on numbers and rotations to kill raid bosses. As long she completes instances it is enough to show her way. It's not optimized? Of course it's not. But people in this game forgot that optimized gameplay is fake requirement created by people and forced by people.

>

> And again, you are not the target for Kitty's work. Any talk about optimized, efficient gameplay is irrelevant here.

 

Then so are kitty's benchmark and we are back to square one. Your words, not mine. Because if its not optimized and effective, its not actually a benchmark. It's a cobbled mess.

 

Laws are created by people and forced by people as well. Should we throw those out?

[Refia Montes.3205]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

>

> That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

 

I don't know what's fun for you, but I find it fun to clear content,, hence I go and get the metabuild for a class I want to play, practice it, make my own adjustments and be a good help to my team.

 

Anyways, her idea of benchmarking these builds are fine and all. I'd even say it's a great idea. The problem is like what we have been echoing over and over again, it is clear that some of the builds aren't even studied, well researched and not executed properly. (See some rotational mistakes at Golem ie using Guardian Torch 5, Wild Blow, casting Phantasmal Swordsman at max Phantasms) Makes it clear that Kitty hasn't really fully understood the class, and what the skills do.

 

Nothing against Kitty's skill and all, but currently if she doesn't accept objective criticism like we've been posting here and her defenders always labeling others criticizing her as elitist, toxic and haters is downright delusional and toxic itself. :(

 

Well, this will be my last comment on this thread. Just really annoyed and want to post my final thoughts on it. Felt like all the criticizers are talking to a solid brick wall.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

> > > >

> > > > That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

> > >

> > > QT fans? I never claimed to be a qT fan, nor has anyone else, you liar.

> > >

> > > And qT has never claimed they are out to 'have fun', nor has anyone else advocating for the meta, and rigorous benchmarks. We advocate efficient, optimized play, not having 'fun'.

> > >

> > > Maybe you should understand the argument before you cry about how toxic it is. It makes you look like a bafoon.

> >

> > This thread is not about optimized, efficient gameplay. Kitty progresses through raid with her stuff so it's a proof that you don't need to be fixated on numbers and rotations to kill raid bosses. As long she completes instances it is enough to show her way. It's not optimized? Of course it's not. But people in this game forgot that optimized gameplay is fake requirement created by people and forced by people.

> >

> > And again, you are not the target for Kitty's work. Any talk about optimized, efficient gameplay is irrelevant here.

>

> Then so are kitty's benchmark and we are back to square one. Your words, not mine. Because if its not optimized and effective, its not actually a benchmark. It's a cobbled mess.

>

> Laws are created by people and forced by people as well. Should we throw those out?

 

Call them whatever you like as long as you are respectful to other players and provide high standards for discussion. Kitty didn't make her videos for you but for people who would love to see how their builds that are not currently praised flavour of the month play in raid environment. Looks like they are better than expected considering she completes raids without being another copycat of qt builds.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > So many paragraphs while the only justification needed for Kitty's work is if she can raid with her builds and complete instances. She can. That's good enough. qt fans have their misguided crusade, let Kitty enjoy game the way she does. There is no reason for any hater present here to use her builds.

> >

> > This isn't a crusade, this is criticism. If you don't want it, don't post to the internet.

> >

> > No one stated they will use a single build other than people like you. And no one said she isn't allowed to post as she likes. However if you choose to post, you also choose to be criticized just like everyone before you. No exceptions.

> >

> > I am criticized, you are, and she is. No one is above it.

>

> Current 8 pages of what you call "criticism" is just misguided crusade. You are not the target of Kitty's work. It's the same as you going to vegan convention promoting meatballs.

 

Actually no, this is like going to a vegan convention and finding someone who adv> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @FrostDraco.8306 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > However if you are gonna promote your way of playing as the only acceptable way to have fun

> > >

> > > That's what qt fans do every day in every squad in every corner of instanced content. This thread is neither for them, nor for you. Kitty doesn't care about how you play. She makes it for herself and people who like to play less stresfull environments than current toxic pve endgame community that is being promoted in this game.

> >

> > QT fans? I never claimed to be a qT fan, nor has anyone else, you liar.

> >

> > And qT has never claimed they are out to 'have fun', nor has anyone else advocating for the meta, and rigorous benchmarks. We advocate efficient, optimized play, not having 'fun'.

> >

> > Maybe you should understand the argument before you cry about how toxic it is. It makes you look like a bafoon.

>

> This thread is not about optimized, efficient gameplay. Kitty progresses through raid with her stuff so it's a proof that you don't need to be fixated on numbers and rotations to kill raid bosses. As long she completes instances it is enough to show her way. It's not optimized? Of course it's not. But people in this game forgot that optimized gameplay is fake requirement created by people and forced by people.

>

> And again, you are not the target for Kitty's work. Any talk about optimized, efficient gameplay is irrelevant here.

 

Kitty progresses with other players carrying her. Those same players next time around when someone wants to play an offmeta build might be:"no thanks, I had one of those and they were bad." If you want more toxicity, sure make peiple play unoptimised and lazy builds.

 

The moment this thread became about benchmarks (see definitions: a point of referance) it did become about optimized gameplay. At least if the builds shown are ment to be benchmarks for what could work.

 

Now if Kitty were to rephrase her intention with these benchmarks and say something along the lines of:"this is how hard it was for me to get xyz performance on xyz build with xyz playtime" essentially comparing how difficult different builds are for inexperienced players(at 8 tries per build, that's where this benchmark would fall in), I doubt people would mind.