Increase swipe to 900 range (and you're awesome).

[Dantheman.3589]

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

[UNOwen.7132]

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

I will skip repeating myself, the truth has already been laid out, but let me just address one part. Yes, the version I showed and the version later. Because between the version that was selected as meta, and the version that someone incorrectly changed to using Trickster, they made 2 more revisions. Then someone incorrectly changed it to Trickster, and in response they rolled it back to the latest revision that correctly showed Bountiful Theft, as that was the meta build. Thats why things were different. Im not saying that Trickster wasnt meta because Metabattle "changed it", but rather that the only time Metabattle suggested it, was a third party edit that the sites administrators completely disagreed with and clearly saw as nothing more than vandalism, given that it got the guy (presumably) banned and the site (definitely) edit protected. Or in simpler terms, if things had gone as the administrators wanted it, then the S/D Condi thief would never have shown Trickster. And you keep going on about stream evidence, yet youve shown nothing. Almost as if it doesnt exist. Well, I say "almost", it definitely doesnt exist.

[Dantheman.3589]

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

I will skip repeating myself, the truth has already been laid out, but let me just address one part. Yes, the version I showed and the version later. Because between the version that was selected as meta, and the version that someone incorrectly changed to using Trickster, they made 2 more revisions. Then someone incorrectly changed it to Trickster, and in response they rolled it back to the latest revision that correctly showed Bountiful Theft, as that was the meta build. Thats why things were different. Im not saying that Trickster wasnt meta because Metabattle "changed it", but rather that the

only

time Metabattle suggested it, was a third party edit that the sites administrators completely disagreed with and clearly saw as nothing more than vandalism, given that it got the guy (presumably) banned and the site (definitely) edit protected. Or in simpler terms, if things had gone as the administrators wanted it, then the S/D Condi thief would

never

have shown Trickster. And you keep going on about stream evidence, yet youve shown nothing. Almost as if it doesnt exist. Well, I say "almost", it definitely doesnt exist.

Weird becuz trickster was mentioned many many many times before that random edit- there was actually a completely separate build at the same time that had trickster as the best option and that was being used by everyone as proven evident on streams. Which is probably why the entire spec had to be changed because a new more popular version was being played much more commonly.Again this incident you mention is coincidental, I applaud the moderators for stopping someone from changing the meta build to be the same thing as another build posted, but when the meta was changed to the new better version it cleared the way for trickster to be added and the other build to be put away as they only needed 1 build. As far as no stream evidence, just lol- daily 1v1 tournies where this was the most common thief build plus lots of ats and my own humble stream which I did daily for like a week where I played it at a pretty high level, plus the fact that everyone I know played it also btw on streams like ats and the 1v1 tournies. There was plenty of evidence and stream material like I said daily public streams that any could watch and btw many did.

[UNOwen.7132]

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

I will skip repeating myself, the truth has already been laid out, but let me just address one part. Yes, the version I showed and the version later. Because between the version that was selected as meta, and the version that someone incorrectly changed to using Trickster, they made 2 more revisions. Then someone incorrectly changed it to Trickster, and in response they rolled it back to the latest revision that correctly showed Bountiful Theft, as that was the meta build. Thats why things were different. Im not saying that Trickster wasnt meta because Metabattle "changed it", but rather that the

only

time Metabattle suggested it, was a third party edit that the sites administrators completely disagreed with and clearly saw as nothing more than vandalism, given that it got the guy (presumably) banned and the site (definitely) edit protected. Or in simpler terms, if things had gone as the administrators wanted it, then the S/D Condi thief would

never

have shown Trickster. And you keep going on about stream evidence, yet youve shown nothing. Almost as if it doesnt exist. Well, I say "almost", it definitely doesnt exist.

Weird becuz trickster was mentioned many many many times before that random edit- there was actually a completely separate build at the same time that had trickster as the best option and that was being used by everyone as proven evident on streams. Which is probably why the entire spec had to be changed because a new more popular version was being played much more commonly.

Ah, the "there totally was another build that shows Trickster, I promise" defense. Late, very late, but expected. Its of course a lie. Lets go over it. "Trickster was mentioned many times before that random edit" Trickster wasnt mentioned once before that edit. Odd thing to lie about given how easy it is to check, but alright. "There was a seperate build yadda yadda" there wasnt. We know that for a number of reasons. First, related builds get mentioned on the page of each other. Under, yknow, "related builds". There was no such thing in any of the previous revisions. Second, any deleted page is put in the logs. We have logs of around that time. We can see those logs. Now I imagine you know what Im going to say, but lets say it anyway. There was no Condi thief page that got deleted. That mysterious second build that used Trickster didnt exist. Its made up.

Edit: you say that, but I watched streams at the time, and noone used trickster. So surely you have something you can show, right? Otherwise its your word against my word and the fact that metabattle only acknowledged Bountiful Theft as meta.

[Dantheman.3589]

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

I will skip repeating myself, the truth has already been laid out, but let me just address one part. Yes, the version I showed and the version later. Because between the version that was selected as meta, and the version that someone incorrectly changed to using Trickster, they made 2 more revisions. Then someone incorrectly changed it to Trickster, and in response they rolled it back to the latest revision that correctly showed Bountiful Theft, as that was the meta build. Thats why things were different. Im not saying that Trickster wasnt meta because Metabattle "changed it", but rather that the

only

time Metabattle suggested it, was a third party edit that the sites administrators completely disagreed with and clearly saw as nothing more than vandalism, given that it got the guy (presumably) banned and the site (definitely) edit protected. Or in simpler terms, if things had gone as the administrators wanted it, then the S/D Condi thief would

never

have shown Trickster. And you keep going on about stream evidence, yet youve shown nothing. Almost as if it doesnt exist. Well, I say "almost", it definitely doesnt exist.

Weird becuz trickster was mentioned many many many times before that random edit- there was actually a completely separate build at the same time that had trickster as the best option and that was being used by everyone as proven evident on streams. Which is probably why the entire spec had to be changed because a new more popular version was being played much more commonly.

Ah, the "there totally was another build that shows Trickster, I promise" defense. Late,

very

late, but expected. Its of course a lie. Lets go over it. "Trickster was mentioned many times before that random edit" Trickster wasnt mentioned

once

before that edit. Odd thing to lie about given how easy it is to check, but alright. "There was a seperate build yadda yadda" there wasnt. We know that for a number of reasons. First, related builds get mentioned on the page of each other. Under, yknow, "related builds". There was no such thing in any of the previous revisions. Second, any deleted page is put in the logs. We have logs of around that time. We can see those logs. Now I imagine you know what Im going to say, but lets say it anyway. There was no Condi thief page that got deleted. That mysterious second build that used Trickster didnt exist. Its made up.

Edit: you say that, but I watched streams at the time, and noone used trickster. So surely you have something you can show, right? Otherwise its your word against my word and the fact that metabattle only acknowledged Bountiful Theft as meta.

I never said there was a related page that got delete but it is fact that there was a second page in the thief section and everyone was playing the version with tricks instead because it was clearly superior hence why trickster was added. Too late lol Youve been raging nonstop! Has anyone backed you up with proof that your right? No because the fact remains the new version of condition thief is clearly superior to what it was and very many ppl played it that way

[UNOwen.7132]

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Ok Im going to assume this is just you mixing up the timeline rather than willfully lying, but no, monthly tournaments

did

exist at the time. In fact, we had more of them than usual. Due to whatever issues MATs had during July, August and September, they actually ran the "monthly" tournaments every 2 weeks. There were 2 "monthly" tournaments in october, and november. Not sure about december, didnt pay attention at the time. So no, people played it in MATs. They ran bountiful theft. They ran it before Staff Thief, during Staff Thief, and after Staff Thief. Practically noone ran Trickster. It was just worse.

Wrong mats were gone for a good bit and the first mat that came around staff bunker thief dominated and was added to meta immediately. Literally almost everyone knows that. Everything I said is true- I streamed maintaining a minimum of 80% win rate solo q and we had frequent streams of daily ats and 1v1 tournies every night on NA, trickster absolutely dominated in all modes available which was ranked, 1v1 tournies and daily ats all of which was available on streams which is why everyone played it as meta and it’s good that metabattle has it listed becuz it was by far the most superior option at the time

So I guess willful lying it is. MATs were gone for a good bit. That "good bit" is July, August and September.

is the first MAT of October. As you can see at the start of the video, its October 5th.

is the second MAT of October. As you can see at 13:25 in, its October 19th. 2 weeks later. Biweekly, as I said. And you can take a look at the first MAT, and see that it has 1 Staff Thief. In the entire thing. But yeah, couple condi thieves, none running Trickery. It simply wasnt as good. So yeah, so much for "Trickster dominating", and if it was a superior version (it wasnt, it was inferior), then it wouldve been listed on Metabattle, rather than being an edit deemed so incorrect, they made the page protected to ensure noone can edit that again. But I suppose its pointless, you have made your point of not caring for the truth

very

clear.

1 staff thief in mats? Lol there were like at least 3 if you count all the top teams on NA and the winning team on EU had 1 after that in the second mat staff thief was on almost every team worth mentioning except team USA, whom lost that to a staff thief team and admittedly didn’t have their full roster. Doesn’t really matter what 2 random condition thief’s ran and again this is during the time when staff thief was 100% meta, though as much as I hate to say something personal to such an obvious troll that I was asked to play with the winning team on NA(USA) but didn’t and I would’ve ran trickster over bountiful theft as would many many ppl becuz it was just superior on condition thief at the time as proved by many streams.

How exactly would you know, you just tried to say that there were no MATs. Clearly you were unaware. Now youre trying to act like you know what was going on in the MAT? But no, there was 1, and that is not nearly enough. And no, all condi thieves in the MAT ran Bountiful Theft. And so they did in the 2nd one, and in both of the november ones, after Staff Thief was massively nerfed and no longer viable. At no point was Trickster anything other than inferior to bountiful theft, as proven by Metabattle, the MATs, and many streams. But no, the only troll is you. But as I said, this is pointless. The facts have been layed out, you choose to ignore them.

Wow there was a mat after a few months of time that self admittedly there was none. There was many many staff thief’s in the first mat that actually even though you claim there was only 1. Apparently what ppl run months later is more important than what was meta for months as you can see on many streams. Metabattle has trickster listed as especially good for the most common variant of the build and to you it is and always has been inferior despite months of stream evidence and the fact that metabattle has it listed as meta, like you pointed out 100% due to the moderator as it’s locked from anyone else changing it. I think you should ask yourself if we are still talking facts or if you are just representing your own opinion as a fact

Yknow what, I know this is pointless, but Ill just point your lies and errors real quick. There werent many staff thief in the first MAT at all. There was 1. You can see the VOD yourself, or you couldve been following it, but there was just 1. Everybody else didnt play it. Couple condi thieves, all on bountiful theft. Metabattle has trickster listed as a

VARIANT

that is

NOT

the default build. Its listed as a viable choice for the most common variant, but also as a usually inferior choice for the most common build. Hence why its a

VARIANT

. Youd think this would be a simple concept, but apparently not. Metabattle has bountiful theft listed as meta, and thats what it was locked to. Trickster was not listed as meta, and they had to change it to being administrator protected to ensure that noone could try and list Trickster as meta. Because it wasnt, bountiful theft was. Trickster was only added as a viable but inferior variant in december, months after october, and prior to that it was always bountiful theft, to the point where they had to lock people who tried to change it to trickster as that was an inferior build. So yes. Bountiful theft is and always was the meta build. Trickster never was. End of story. Thats it though, not going to repeat myself even

once

more.

Weird becuz there were many streams of the first mat, the finals alone on NA had what 3 staff thief’s? And the winning team on EU had 1, after staff thief got such huge publicity it became one of the most common at builds in the game and was also super common in ranked at least when it was useful. Again stream evidence, also your deduction that trickster was never meta because it was changed, btw during a new meta and changed back to basically the same thing- btw 6 things were different from the version selected by the moderator than the really bad version that you seem to think is better. But hey these are just facts that I can prove with much much stream evidence even though u claim otherwise. If trickster was bad and never meta and if 3 months of gw2 history and stream evidence never happened then hey I’d admit to being wrong but it all did happen and I wouldn’t admit it because that would be a real pointless lie to most ppl in this game

I will skip repeating myself, the truth has already been laid out, but let me just address one part. Yes, the version I showed and the version later. Because between the version that was selected as meta, and the version that someone incorrectly changed to using Trickster, they made 2 more revisions. Then someone incorrectly changed it to Trickster, and in response they rolled it back to the latest revision that correctly showed Bountiful Theft, as that was the meta build. Thats why things were different. Im not saying that Trickster wasnt meta because Metabattle "changed it", but rather that the

only

time Metabattle suggested it, was a third party edit that the sites administrators completely disagreed with and clearly saw as nothing more than vandalism, given that it got the guy (presumably) banned and the site (definitely) edit protected. Or in simpler terms, if things had gone as the administrators wanted it, then the S/D Condi thief would

never

have shown Trickster. And you keep going on about stream evidence, yet youve shown nothing. Almost as if it doesnt exist. Well, I say "almost", it definitely doesnt exist.

Weird becuz trickster was mentioned many many many times before that random edit- there was actually a completely separate build at the same time that had trickster as the best option and that was being used by everyone as proven evident on streams. Which is probably why the entire spec had to be changed because a new more popular version was being played much more commonly.

Ah, the "there totally was another build that shows Trickster, I promise" defense. Late,

very

late, but expected. Its of course a lie. Lets go over it. "Trickster was mentioned many times before that random edit" Trickster wasnt mentioned

once

before that edit. Odd thing to lie about given how easy it is to check, but alright. "There was a seperate build yadda yadda" there wasnt. We know that for a number of reasons. First, related builds get mentioned on the page of each other. Under, yknow, "related builds". There was no such thing in any of the previous revisions. Second, any deleted page is put in the logs. We have logs of around that time. We can see those logs. Now I imagine you know what Im going to say, but lets say it anyway. There was no Condi thief page that got deleted. That mysterious second build that used Trickster didnt exist. Its made up.

Edit: you say that, but I watched streams at the time, and noone used trickster. So surely you have something you can show, right? Otherwise its your word against my word and the fact that metabattle only acknowledged Bountiful Theft as meta.

I never said there was a related page that got delete but it is fact that there was a second page in the thief section and everyone was playing the version with tricks instead because it was clearly superior hence why trickster was added. Too late lol Youve been raging nonstop! Has anyone backed you up with proof that your right? No because the fact remains the new version of condition thief is clearly superior to what it was and very many ppl played it that way

There was no second page. If it existed it wouldve either had to have been deleted (there was no such page that was deleted) or it would have to still exist (no such page exists). But as I said, you cant find it, or a log of its deletion, because it never existed. Its just a made up page, a bad lie that you cling to after your previous lies were exposed as that. And since no such page existed, noone was playing it either. Otherwise it wouldve been noted. And no, it was clearly inferior, hence why it didnt exist as a page and the only S/D condi page that existed listed exclusively Bountiful Theft with Trickster as an inferior variant. And no, thats not why Trickster was added, Trickster was eventually (long after S/D Condi was meta) added as an inferior alternative some people (like you, apparently) swear by. But its clearly inferior.

[Dantheman.3589]

@UNOwen.7132Dude I just don’t wanna hear anymore. You claim to know everything making speculation that the moderator did this for so and so reason etc. You also claim o I watched the mAT and there was only 1 staff thief- wow though you are neglecting every other stream. All that is clearly bs- you aren’t a moderator and it doesn’t matter what only you watched. You’re probably an eu only player or something but ignoring everything else besides what you think doesn’t make your argument valid or useful at all after all none of it has anything to do with this thread.