sephiroth.4217 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"XECOR.2814" said: > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > @"XECOR.2814" said: > > > They just made ganking worse. And lets be real thats all that its going to be used for. It wad made for gankers who are not that good of a player to 1v1 or go in pvp but good enough to kill someone 3v1 or hit and run on a cheese build. There is no other scenario where it is used and imo is unhealthy for the game but whatever. > > > > it favors numbers pure and simple. > > > > "gankers" are at the bottom of the food chain. > > > > think about it... 3v1 is nothing compared too 20v2... atleast the 3v1 has a chance. > > I think if people are doing 20v2 then even if they are killing those 2 they are losing their time and server space by not doing something more effective. But 3v1 or 5v1 is different kind of cancer. yea 3v1 cancer isn't as fatal as 20v2 cancer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"Doug.4930" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . . It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . . Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . . And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? > > > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w > > No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . . > > It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . . Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN. > > Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . . > Nobody is arguing those things. But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse. > And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ? I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > > > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > > > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > > > > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? > > > > > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w > > > > No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . . > > > > It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . . > > > Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN. And ppl who purchase PoF today pay $30. Which is less . . . The only way your model could be sustained is if anet placed restrictions on all of its updates to only include cosmetic and convenience items, or if ppl who purchased one version of the game were entitled to all future versions gratis. Neither of those models would be good for the game or financially viable . . . You're trying to argue that maintaining a current copy of the game is p2w. I think this is bc you are viewing the situation only from your own perspective, as if only the ppl who have been playing since core matter . . > > > > Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . . > > > > Nobody is arguing those things. > @"Doug.4930" said: > > **The expansions are not the game.** They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. That is exactly what is being argued. The game as defined in this post no longer exists . . . > But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse. > > > > And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ? > > I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade And I've spent what? $120? $150? Idr, but far, far less. Yet somehow all of your extra dollars have yielded you no advantages. We have access to all the same features, as we have both kept our game up to date over time . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > > > > > > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? > > > > > > > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w > > > > > > No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . . > > > > > > It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . . > > > > > > Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN. > And ppl who purchase PoF today pay $30. Which is less . . . > But I didn't purchase the game today. I purchased a game that's been functionally deleted. > The only way your model could be sustained is if anet placed restrictions on all of its updates to only include cosmetic and convenience items, or if ppl who purchased one version of the game were entitled to all future versions gratis. Neither of those models would be good for the game or financially viable . . . > There's a third way. They could've been confident enough that secretly, I was "really into pve" and sold their living story.. > You're trying to argue that maintaining a current copy of the game is p2w. And you're arguing that selling power creep to your original customers isnt > I think this is bc you are viewing the situation only from your own perspective, as if only the ppl who have been playing since core matter . . Ah, victim status. > > > > > > Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . . > > > > > > > Nobody is arguing those things. > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > **The expansions are not the game.** They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > That is exactly what is being argued. The game as defined in this post no longer exists . . . You've gone back to arguing this isn't gw2. > > But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse. > > > > > > > And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ? > > > > I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade > And I've spent what? $120? $150? Idr, but far, far less. Yet somehow all of your extra dollars have yielded you no advantages. We have access to all the same features, as we have both kept our game up to date over time . . . > Yet the player who bought gw2 for $60 in 2012 and the player who added HoT in 2014 ($120) is at a severe disadvantage in WvW still, today, needing to pay more. How do you deny they're selling advantages? Must we argue the definition of pay to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugo.4705 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > ok you won gankers. > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > nice anet > exactly.... at this point I now wonder why they added Warclaw if it's to destroy the mount completely 3 patches after. Some just don't want to be agroed by troll thiefs or mesmers while joining their com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"hugo.4705" said: > Some just don't want to be agroed by troll thiefs or mesmers while joining their com. After which they'll happily chase that thief and Mesmer with their 49 friends.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugo.4705 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Frankly, whereas jousting can be fun, players already had tools to dismount others: Spamming condis on them, hitting them with high critical damage.... At least here, there is a drawback, both players are dismounted. So they are no need to use it apart if too blob of warclaws are charging each others. But if some are using it at a troll.... It shouldn't one shot, only inflict damages but not dismounting. Or dismounting if you are really close like real joust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > No, and I don't really understand how you could draw that conclusion? > > > > > > > > > > > Because you said this: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as you've come to agree that purchasing the game is not p2w, we agree, no need to argue further . . . > > > > > > > > > > > This statement implies that my arguments about the xpacs being pay 2 win are invalid because initially we all had to buy the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > >I've done nothing but buy the game, and I have access to everything it has to offer, excepting the cosmetic and convenience items to be had from the gem store. Which I guess technically I could just buy with gold anyway. Your example seems completely out of left field and not comparable to anything that exists in the game . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So lets compare the two examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation A: The xpacs give a huge player advantage because the PoF elite specs are just better than all core and HoT specs. Also mounts. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: The new armour tier gives a huge player advantage because the stats from the new gear are just better than all core and HoT tiers. It requires players to buy it with irl money in this case $15. Therefore its pay 2 win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Situation A and situation B both involve additional and OPTIONAL purchases that give players who spend the EXTRA money an advantage over those who don't. > > > > > > > > > > > So far your only refute to this logic is because the base game was payed, then nothing else after it can be pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, the expansions are the game. I see your confusion now. So you are in fact arguing that being forced to buy the game to gain access to its features is p2w, and yes I do disagree with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The expansions are not the game. They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By that logic 'the game', as you choose to misidentify it, closed to new players with the release of HoT. I hadn't realized that was such a sad day. I feel fortunate to have gotten in under the wire there. I wonder what all of those other ppl have been playing all this time . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They've been playing a F2P version. In an ideal world those original core classes available to the F2P crowd should be as balanced as the xpac specs. The incentive for buying the xpac being the ability to play new and interesting classes. However those classes shouldn't be straight upgrades from core classes. HoT basically was however. PoF is also however less so than HoT at release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is going in circles. I see HoT and PoF as paid DLC and not "the game". You see them as being a part of the base game. So we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree and move on. > > > > > > > > > > > > You've missed the point. By your logic, everyone who bought the game after HoT's release actually bought something other than 'the game', as the game only includes vanilla, which went f2p before HoT's release and effectively ceased to exist. You could no longer purchase it, and the f2p version has restrictions which make it functionally different from the core game. So the question remains, if players who purchased the game after HoT's release did not in fact purchase the game, what did they purchase . . ? > > > > > > > > > > So you'd argue that this isn't gw2 and all purchases prior to PoF are null and void? Maybe if vanilla and hot were still available to play separately.. Both expansions offered significant power creep, for additional money. That's _kinda_ the definition of p2w > > > > > > > > No, I would argue that this is gw2, which is a game that has evolved over time into its current version, and which will continue to evolve in the future as long as they continue to update it . . . > > > > > > > > It is the poster I've quoted who feels gw2 ceased to exist with the release of HoT, and exactly what we're playing now is something other, exactly what idk and is what I've been trying to tease out . . . > > > > > > > > > Gw2 released in 2012 for $60.. People that purchased that game can no longer play it without being at a disadvantage. They have to PAY more TO WIN. > > And ppl who purchase PoF today pay $30. Which is less . . . > > > But I didn't purchase the game today. I purchased a game that's been functionally deleted. Deleting the game makes it p2w? Something that doesn't exist is p2w . . ? > > > The only way your model could be sustained is if anet placed restrictions on all of its updates to only include cosmetic and convenience items, or if ppl who purchased one version of the game were entitled to all future versions gratis. Neither of those models would be good for the game or financially viable . . . > > > > There's a third way. > They could've been confident enough that secretly, I was "really into pve" and sold their living story.. But they'd be intentionally hamstringing themselves by making some updates off limits . . . > > You're trying to argue that maintaining a current copy of the game is p2w. > > And you're arguing that selling power creep to your original customers isnt > > > I think this is bc you are viewing the situation only from your own perspective, as if only the ppl who have been playing since core matter . . > > Ah, victim status. I don't know that I'd say you view yourself as a victim, just that you're not looking at the broader perspective. But idk, you'd have a better idea of your perspective than I . . . > > > > > > > > > > Arguing that they shouldn't release updates bc it disadvantages ppl who refuse to keep up to date is destructive for the game. Arguing that ppl who do keep their game up to date shouldn't be permitted to play in the competitive modes is destructive for the game. Arguing that expansions should be free ignores financial reality, for the time being . . . > > > > > > > > > > Nobody is arguing those things. > > > @"Doug.4930" said: > > > > > > **The expansions are not the game.** They are DLC. They are optional purchases. The game was released on the 28th of august 2012. All post releases of that game are DLC and not the game. > > > > > > A game is bought once. The moment you give players the ability to gain inherent advantages over their fellow players through OPTIONAL DLC purchases then the game has pay 2 win elements. Because those who pay are more likely to win. Those who bought PoF are more likely to win over those who have not. > > That is exactly what is being argued. The game as defined in this post no longer exists . . . > > You've gone back to arguing this isn't gw2. Again, you are confused. That is what the quoted poster is arguing, what you are defending and what I am arguing against. From my perspective, PoF is 'the game', while older versions are just that, older versions . . . > > > But Anet didn't have to use power creep as a marketing tool.. That's the impasse. > > > > > > > > > > And if you're just hung up on the dollars you should use accurate data. Ppl who buy PoF today actually spend less than ppl who bought gw2 on release. How is spending less for more p2w . . ? > > > > > > I've spent several thousand dollars on the game. But I'll also call a spade a spade > > And I've spent what? $120? $150? Idr, but far, far less. Yet somehow all of your extra dollars have yielded you no advantages. We have access to all the same features, as we have both kept our game up to date over time . . . > > > > Yet the player who bought gw2 for $60 in 2012 and the player who added HoT in 2014 ($120) is at a severe disadvantage in WvW still, today, needing to pay more. How do you deny they're selling advantages? Must we argue the definition of pay to win? We don't have to, but apparently we are. If you want to argue that buying the game is p2w, I will disagree. If you want to argue that anet should not be allowed to charge for expansions, I will disagree. If you want to argue that $30 is more than $60, I will disagree . . . > @"hugo.4705" said: > > exactly.... at this point I now wonder why they added Warclaw if it's to destroy the mount completely 3 patches after That's what I was curious about. Mount/no mount, dismount skill or not, Idc really. But I'm left wondering, what was the original plan . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anput.4620 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzyp.6295 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 I've been testing a bit and I am glad Arena-Net finally added some anti-mount play. It took a while but it feels really nice to be able to roam again. I have two issues though currently that I think should probably be addressed: 1) It needs to be unblockable. Aegis blocking it feels like a glitch tbh and should be addressed. It's an issue of balance imo, guardians shouldn't have an added benefit to using mounts that other classes lack. 2) The casting animation should probably be more visible. Perhaps its just me but I can't seem to notice when a player is lifting the lance to throw, and at times it honestly looks like they throw it and I instantly get knocked off without getting a chance to dodge. I'm not sure if latency issues or what are at play here, but perhaps Anet should include a sort of casting image like a Glyph or Signet over the head of the player to indicate when the spell is being cast. It might also be worth it to look at raising the health pool of the mount just a smidge, as the low HP was suppose to allow the player to get dismounted fairly quickly. With Lance in play, it might need a slight buff to keep some survivability, but this is hardly a pressing issue and may even be a L2P issue since the skill is new. But wanted to mention it still. Overall, I am super happy with this addition! Finally. Now we just need those anti-mount traps and its all golden. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Anput.4620" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anput.4620 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Anput.4620" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anput.4620 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"hugo.4705" said: > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > ok you won gankers. > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > nice anet > > > > exactly.... at this point I now wonder why they added Warclaw if it's to destroy the mount completely 3 patches after. Some just don't want to be agroed by troll thiefs or mesmers while joining their com. Why are you even wondering? **Every time Anet adds something they always go overboard**. From the mirage to bloodlust or arrowcarts to deadly chill, literally everything has to nerfed again and again and again. But players will only call it "destroyed" when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krypto.2069 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 **Anet,** I just want to say - "I L <3 VE LANCE!" :smiley: Thank you for reinserting the element of **_DANGER_** back into WvW. Since the inception of the Warclaw, WvW had become a little bit too _relaxed_ imo. It had gotten to the point where people who didn't have high spike damage builds wouldn't even bother trying to attack mounted foes. (I would commonly see folks of opposing teams just riding past one another :astonished:.) It was like we all were in Queensdale or someplace half the time! :lol: But now... the enemy has to **RESPECT** the potential of being dismounted and **THRUSTED** into battle! :grimace: And they can no longer think that just because I'm not on my Ranger, Ele or Rev, you're safe. NOPE! Haha! And this goes both ways, and I LIKE IT! I have to now take "being Lanced" into consideration, which makes me more alert and mindful of the situational awareness factor, especially on enemy turf! :+1: Lastly, I 'm glad that Lance is not "full-proof." It can easily fail due to no LoS, distance and/or enemy dodging, etc. Plus the cooldown seems pretty decent imo - not too long and not too short. So far I've been finding Lance quite enjoyable, including when I've been _the target._ HAHA! :sweat_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 You won't always hit someone with a lance, but it's something we can work with for now. The Warclaw hasn't really lost anything in this regard, and it still needs changes, but the lance does help somewhat. All in all, better than nothing, but there is more work to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Anput.4620" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. > > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. That doesn't mean testing wasn't done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > > > > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. > > > > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. > > That doesn't mean testing wasn't done. How you gonna argue they tested rev? It's not like they're borked only in hard-to-duplicate, once-in-a-lifetime situations.. Even activating a hammer skill _once_ should have indicated things weren't working as intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > > > > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > > > > > > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. > > > > > > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. > > > > That doesn't mean testing wasn't done. > > How you gonna argue they tested rev? It's not like they're borked only in hard-to-duplicate, once-in-a-lifetime situations.. Even activating a hammer skill _once_ should have indicated things weren't working as intended. Easy ... I won't. I'm simply saying that just because 'bugs' doesn't mean there was no testing on Warclaw. Saying that there is no testing because bugs is a foolish statement. Even a reasonable person can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > > > > > > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > > > > > > > > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. > > > > > > > > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. > > > > > > That doesn't mean testing wasn't done. > > > > How you gonna argue they tested rev? It's not like they're borked only in hard-to-duplicate, once-in-a-lifetime situations.. Even activating a hammer skill _once_ should have indicated things weren't working as intended. > > Easy ... I won't. > > I'm simply saying that just because 'bugs' doesn't mean there was no testing. I get it, in the same way having few police results in a very low arrest rate xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Anput.4620" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok you won gankers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have finally a stupid weapon which you can dismount players who dont want to fight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nice anet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a strange complaint ... Anet tolds us about 2 weeks after Warclaw was released they were making a dismount skill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like I've established that I don't care what the rules are. Mounts/no mounts, dismount skill/no dismount skill, it's all the same to me. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so just use whatever rules exist. But I can't help noticing how odd this decision is. What was the point of adding the mount only to add a dismount skill immediately afterwards? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's easy to answer ... because mounts were probably NEVER intended to avoid combat. They were (at least to me) a way to get to where you want to be faster. I think the fact that you could be dismounted is an indication of what they were ... and were not meant to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seem to be so few players willing to adapt to either situation, everyone is entrenched in one camp or the other and I don't know how many ppl have really stopped to consider the motivations for it all . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an unfortunate sign of how MMO's cater to the newer generations now ... trying to appease everyone ... and resulting in appeasing no one. It will be a hard lesson for Anet to learn because fundamentally, this wasn't about not liking or hating mounts for players ... it was about the perceptions people have about what WvW is supposed to be. Yet again, Anet doesn't make a stand with their approach to developing the game and people are STILL left to guess and impose their own ideas of what it should be and for who. It's the same thing in PVE with raids ... game caters to group A ... Anet introduces Raids that don't suit the playstyle of group A ... WTH are they doing? Then they try and bridge the gap ... but for who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This general wishy washy approach to the game philosophy is HURTING it, not fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mounts were made to sell skins with zero afterthought to their impact tbh, as much as we argue about it skins were 90% of the reason probs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't know that ... it's just your speculation because you have a big bag of salt. Even to this day you can see there was not zero afterthought to their impact. They get you to where you need to be faster. That's not an afterthought ... that is intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the part of getting places faster, everything else, all the bugs, dismounting unbalance etc. Look at how many things they had to change/fix, no testing done at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you don't know that ... you have no clue what testing was done. Can I just assume everytime you make a post, you make most of it up? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If testing was done why were there an enormous amount of issues? It is just the logical assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues don't indicate no testing was done. It's NOT a logical assumption at all. > > > > > > > > > > If testing was done these issues would be fixed before release. > > > > > > > > That doesn't mean testing wasn't done. > > > > > > How you gonna argue they tested rev? It's not like they're borked only in hard-to-duplicate, once-in-a-lifetime situations.. Even activating a hammer skill _once_ should have indicated things weren't working as intended. > > > > Easy ... I won't. > > > > I'm simply saying that just because 'bugs' doesn't mean there was no testing. > > I get it, in the same way having no police results in a very low arrest rate xD Um sure ... bugs doesn't mean there is no testing and Warclaw is no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now