i will never understand the balancing team

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > I don't even understand where 'power elite' label comes from. Anet certainly doesn't designate elites this way and I've seen my share of reaper condi builds that work really good as well. Seems to me that's a made up term to justify how you think Suffer should work; it's contrived point.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > in 2017-11-07 balance patch they heavily nerfed condi reaper dmg sources and buffed power dmg pushing the elite into power

> > >

> > > Yes they did, but that doesn't change the fact that Reaper isn't a 'power elite'. It's a label people invent to twist arguments in their favour. Certainly, no decision or changes should be made that push reaper further into such a focused theme.

> >

> > Actually, you're wrong... Reaper is meant to be a power-based class from conception. Although that failed and throughout the duration of HoT it was played as a condi class, with them having done some hard changes (and nerfs) to the condi aspect (and the sustainability of the class), and pushing towards power damage to fit their vision.

>

> That doesn't make sense; Anet never described Reaper as a 'power-based' class IIRC and it doesn't make sense to say it failed and throughtout the duration of HoT, it was played as a condi class. Maybe that's true for you and a few others, but nothing about Reaper made everyone think it was a failure as a power build and switched to a condi build. That's definitely not Anet saying that.

 

You didn't understand a single word of my post... Or chose not to.

What failed was making it a power build. The fact that **everyone** used it as a condi build means that they failed to properly push the power build as they should, and those who didn't... Well there's people swearing by celestial builds to this day, if you get my point.

I'm not going to dig through dev posts or declarations where they said that reaper would be a power class, their actions and reworks just before PoF and after speak for themselves.

[Catchyfx.5768]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > I don't even understand where 'power elite' label comes from. Anet certainly doesn't designate elites this way and I've seen my share of reaper condi builds that work really good as well. Seems to me that's a made up term to justify how you think Suffer should work; it's contrived point.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > in 2017-11-07 balance patch they heavily nerfed condi reaper dmg sources and buffed power dmg pushing the elite into power

> > > >

> > > > Yes they did, but that doesn't change the fact that Reaper isn't a 'power elite'. It's a label people invent to twist arguments in their favour. Certainly, no decision or changes should be made that push reaper further into such a focused theme.

> > >

> > > Actually, you're wrong... Reaper is meant to be a power-based class from conception. Although that failed and throughout the duration of HoT it was played as a condi class, with them having done some hard changes (and nerfs) to the condi aspect (and the sustainability of the class), and pushing towards power damage to fit their vision.

> >

> > That doesn't make sense; Anet never described Reaper as a 'power-based' class IIRC and it doesn't make sense to say it failed and throughtout the duration of HoT, it was played as a condi class. Maybe that's true for you and a few others, but nothing about Reaper made everyone think it was a failure as a power build and switched to a condi build. That's definitely not Anet saying that.

>

> You didn't understand a single word of my post... Or chose not to.

> What failed was making it a power build. The fact that **everyone** used it as a condi build means that they failed to properly push the power build as they should, and those who didn't... Well there's people swearing by celestial builds to this day, if you get my point.

> I'm not going to dig through dev posts or declarations where they said that reaper would be a power class, their actions and reworks just before PoF and after speak for themselves.

 

I think they push Reaper to power spec because of scourge was condiheavy and reaper too to make player choose.

[Etheri.5406]

You are correct, you will never understand balancing (team).

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> You didn't understand a single word of my post... Or chose not to.

> What failed was making it a power build. The fact that **everyone** used it as a condi build means that they failed to properly push the power build as they should, and those who didn't... Well there's people swearing by celestial builds to this day, if you get my point.

> I'm not going to dig through dev posts or declarations where they said that reaper would be a power class, their actions and reworks just before PoF and after speak for themselves.

 

Strictly speaking they brought down condi build and push up power build to the same level of dps, they didn't make reaper a power spec. Which is in line with their way of thinking:

 

> Most often_nerfing a completely dominant build actually creates __more__ build diversity.

>

> In addition to keeping build diversity alive on a single profession we try to ensure build and role diversity across all professions.

> Sometimes that means nerfing a build on one profession so that other professions can have a role in that same space.

 

Granted that making reaper a "power spec" would be totally against this quote goal.

[DragonFury.6243]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> Strictly speaking they brought down condi build and push up power build to the same level of dps, they didn't make reaper a power spec. Which is in line with their way of thinking:

>

except they failed they over nerfed the condi build since the 2107 patch i haven't seen a single condi reaper in PvP and WvW and in pve condi necro is used mostly for epi so no increase in build diversity only what happened is shift to power to stay relevant .

its not an argument that someone can play condi reaper i can play a heal support thief but will it be useful is the question and condi reaper sure isn't .

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > Strictly speaking they brought down condi build and push up power build to the same level of dps, they didn't make reaper a power spec. Which is in line with their way of thinking:

> >

> except they failed they over nerfed the condi build since the 2107 patch i haven't seen a single condi reaper in PvP and WvW and in pve condi necro is used mostly for epi so no increase in build diversity only what happened is shift to power to stay relevant .

> its not an argument that someone can play condi reaper i can play a heal support thief but will it be useful is the question and condi reaper sure isn't .

 

If I recall correctly, this patch only nerfed WvW since the number of bleed stacks was normalized for PvP and WvW in this patch and the difference from RS#4 was at best negligible. PvP already had that level of condition damage or very close long before the patch and that wasn't affecting how many players were playing condi reaper there. The only thing that really nerfed the use of condi reaper is the introduction of scourge that had an overpowered level of condi pressure. The argument stand, the global level of dps for both creaper and preaper is very close right now which mean that both have the same viability as damage dealer in PvP.

 

The condi crew just moved on onto the scourge supported by their belief that scourge is "the condi spec" and reaper is "the power spec". And the more players shout that this is the case, the more ingrained it is in the mind of everybody and the less players use what's supposedly UP and focus on what's "proper" to use. When one say that repaer is a power spec, this person just limit his own possibilities and just follow what some players in the community arbitrarily decided based on their own liking.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > >

> > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > >

> > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > >

> > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > >

> > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > >

> > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > >

> > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> >

> > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> >

> > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> >

> > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

>

> Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

 

I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

 

As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

 

As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

I would take suffer over shake it off any time in WvW.

 

- 13 Second CD

- No Cast time

- Instant 5 Condis gone

- You transfer the condis

- more stuff like chill / dmg / life leach

 

 

[DragonFury.6243]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

 

> The condi crew just moved on onto the scourge supported by their belief that scourge is "the condi spec" and reaper is "the power spec". And the more players shout that this is the case, the more ingrained it is in the mind of everybody and the less players use what's supposedly UP and focus on what's "proper" to use. When one say that repaer is a power spec, this person just limit his own possibilities and just follow what some players in the community arbitrarily decided based on their own liking.

 

i used to play condi reaper before the patch the change to shroud Increased life-force consumption from 3% to 5% and shroud reentry to 10 sec for some power buff killed condi reaper .

[DragonFury.6243]

> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> I would take suffer over shake it off any time in WvW.

>

> - 13 Second CD

> - No Cast time

> - Instant 5 Condis gone

> - You transfer the condis

> - more stuff like chill / dmg / life leach

>

except that you will die before reaching the enemy in zerg fight cuz must condi apply at range

 

[DragonFury.6243]

If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

**VS**

Vampiric Presence

who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

[Obtena.7952]

Shiro? What necro skill is that?

 

Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ...

[Catchyfx.5768]

> @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> **VS**

> Vampiric Presence

> who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

 

I Think Its Will be awesome, lets wait for numbers but i Think it could be super cool support usefull necro ? vampire class hell yea

[Sephylon.4938]

> @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> **VS**

> Vampiric Presence

> who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

 

It will most likely be better, especially since its on an espec, and an f, and costs energy to maintain vs a trait. It'll prob be comparible to soul cleave summit in terms of siphoning.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Dace.8173" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > > >

> > > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > > >

> > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > > >

> > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > > >

> > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > > >

> > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> > >

> > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> > >

> > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> > >

> > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

> >

> > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

>

> I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

>

> As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

>

> As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

 

Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make.

[Lahmia.2193]

> @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> **VS**

> Vampiric Presence

> who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

 

The "revenant is proof that devs read the necro forum" meme keeps getting stronger and stronger.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > > > >

> > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > > > >

> > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> > > >

> > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> > > >

> > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> > > >

> > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

> > >

> > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> >

> > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> >

> > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

> >

> > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

>

> Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make.

 

Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here

 

> Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust.

 

is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk."

 

As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said

 

> And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it.

 

to which I said

 

> Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things.

 

You also said

 

> And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game.

 

and I countered with

 

>I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things.

 

You also stated

 

>If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

 

and I responded with

 

>Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

 

Then there was

 

>And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game.

 

to which I said

 

>As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

 

So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Dace.8173" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> > > > >

> > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

> > > >

> > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> > >

> > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> > >

> > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

> > >

> > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

> >

> > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make.

>

> Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here

>

> > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust.

>

> is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk."

>

> As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said

>

> > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it.

>

> to which I said

>

> > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things.

>

> You also said

>

> > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game.

>

> and I countered with

>

> >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things.

>

> You also stated

>

> >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

>

> and I responded with

>

> >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

>

> Then there was

>

> >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game.

>

> to which I said

>

> >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

>

> So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments.

 

again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Lahmia.2193" said:

> > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> > **VS**

> > Vampiric Presence

> > who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> > keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

>

> The "revenant is proof that devs read the necro forum" meme keeps getting stronger and stronger.

 

Revenant has always stepped on the toes of necromancer. Its extraordinarily frustrating. Personally, I feel that if they do a GW3, and go along with an idea that each profession can use any armor type the revenant should be fused with necromancer and be the necromancer's heavy armor version. But that's just an idea, not sure how it would work out.

[Anchoku.8142]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Lahmia.2193" said:

> > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> > > **VS**

> > > Vampiric Presence

> > > who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> > > keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

> >

> > The "revenant is proof that devs read the necro forum" meme keeps getting stronger and stronger.

>

> Revenant has always stepped on the toes of necromancer. Its extraordinarily frustrating. Personally, I feel that if they do a GW3, and go along with an idea that each profession can use any armor type the revenant should be fused with necromancer and be the necromancer's heavy armor version. But that's just an idea, not sure how it would work out.

 

Well, yes, Revenant was stepping on Necro toes since before it was a Glint in a developer's eyes.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

> > > > >

> > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> > > >

> > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> > > >

> > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

> > > >

> > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

> > >

> > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make.

> >

> > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here

> >

> > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust.

> >

> > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk."

> >

> > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said

> >

> > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it.

> >

> > to which I said

> >

> > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things.

> >

> > You also said

> >

> > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game.

> >

> > and I countered with

> >

> > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things.

> >

> > You also stated

> >

> > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> >

> > and I responded with

> >

> > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> >

> > Then there was

> >

> > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game.

> >

> > to which I said

> >

> > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

> >

> > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments.

>

> again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you.

 

The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you.

[Dace.8173]

> @"Anchoku.8142" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"Lahmia.2193" said:

> > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > If you’re channeling the vicious nature of Shiro Tagachi, allies around you will steal health from enemies they strike .

> > > > **VS**

> > > > Vampiric Presence

> > > > who is with me to bet on the new life siphon will be better ?

> > > > keep in mind that we as a necro player base cant compare between professions and ours but ANET can copy our unique group buff and give it to other professions

> > >

> > > The "revenant is proof that devs read the necro forum" meme keeps getting stronger and stronger.

> >

> > Revenant has always stepped on the toes of necromancer. Its extraordinarily frustrating. Personally, I feel that if they do a GW3, and go along with an idea that each profession can use any armor type the revenant should be fused with necromancer and be the necromancer's heavy armor version. But that's just an idea, not sure how it would work out.

>

> Well, yes, Revenant was stepping on Necro toes since before it was a Glint in a developer's eyes.

 

I see what you did there.

[Axl.8924]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > >

> > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> >

> > feelsbadman T_T

>

> Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

>

> I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

>

> Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

>

> I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

 

Thing is:while there are some players who are fans of certain builds like scourge over reaper, or reaper over scourge, the problem is much larger.

 

We are getting hate from outside necromancer class from mesmers warriors etc, and every time we do good, its either a glitch a bug or unintended, and get gutted and nerfed into the ground.

 

Scourge while a interesting spec, i find reaper to be better balanced due to the fact you don't have those abilities that are built in on defensive and offensive.Scourge needs a whole bunch of reworking to be viable and not deemed overpowered in spvp to kill it with fire, or we will have mass uprising of eles/warriors/thieves/mesmers/guardians who will cry, and cry they will, then you can kiss goodbye scourge.Its not that i want scourge to fail, but a lot of us realize that the balance problems are so large, that its literally a nightmare, and it seems ANET doesn't know what to do.

 

And your mentioning me and the death knight thing right? I can explain:

 

Thing is:If reaper is to be slow and have trouble running after people, then it needs tools to be able to keep people close and it needs defensives to be able to survive while also tools to try and keep people close.Problem is though:its fairly obvious that WOW and GW2 function very differently, and bunker builds are a nono.Any sort of damage you can do, you are expected to be a glass cannon, and i don't think reaper can function as a roamer like that, because everyone else can do 1 hit kills such as mesmers/eles/warriors/thieves, and reaper's shroud disappears nearly instantly.

 

 

[Lily.1935]

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > >

> > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > >

> > > feelsbadman T_T

> >

> > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> >

> > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> >

> > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> >

> > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

>

> Thing is:while there are some players who are fans of certain builds like scourge over reaper, or reaper over scourge, the problem is much larger.

>

> We are getting hate from outside necromancer class from mesmers warriors etc, and every time we do good, its either a glitch a bug or unintended, and get gutted and nerfed into the ground.

>

> Scourge while a interesting spec, i find reaper to be better balanced due to the fact you don't have those abilities that are built in on defensive and offensive.Scourge needs a whole bunch of reworking to be viable and not deemed overpowered in spvp to kill it with fire, or we will have mass uprising of eles/warriors/thieves/mesmers/guardians who will cry, and cry they will, then you can kiss goodbye scourge.Its not that i want scourge to fail, but a lot of us realize that the balance problems are so large, that its literally a nightmare, and it seems ANET doesn't know what to do.

>

> And your mentioning me and the death knight thing right? I can explain:

>

> Thing is:If reaper is to be slow and have trouble running after people, then it needs tools to be able to keep people close and it needs defensives to be able to survive while also tools to try and keep people close.Problem is though:its fairly obvious that WOW and GW2 function very differently, and bunker builds are a nono.Any sort of damage you can do, you are expected to be a glass cannon, and i don't think reaper can function as a roamer like that, because everyone else can do 1 hit kills such as mesmers/eles/warriors/thieves, and reaper's shroud disappears nearly instantly.

>

>

 

I think Shroud in itself is higher priority for balance than Scourge is. Some of the scourge's issues is from some rule breaking Arena net had done. Such as the spammable crippling. Shroud has lots of problems, I wont argue that Reaper is better balanced, it has to be since it has the same basis as death shroud. But its not without major design problems. You still can't be healed by allies, are locked out of your utility.

 

I Don't care for reaper. I've made that clear. Doesn't mean I don't want to see it buffed. I do. I want it to be viable. I want support scourge to be viable. But both reaper's and scourge's problems stem from core necromancer.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Dace.8173" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> > > > >

> > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone.

> > > > >

> > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

> > > >

> > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make.

> > >

> > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here

> > >

> > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust.

> > >

> > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk."

> > >

> > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said

> > >

> > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it.

> > >

> > > to which I said

> > >

> > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things.

> > >

> > > You also said

> > >

> > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game.

> > >

> > > and I countered with

> > >

> > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things.

> > >

> > > You also stated

> > >

> > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason.

> > >

> > > and I responded with

> > >

> > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players.

> > >

> > > Then there was

> > >

> > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game.

> > >

> > > to which I said

> > >

> > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement.

> > >

> > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments.

> >

> > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you.

>

> The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you.

 

I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly.