Jump to content
  • Sign Up

I'm getting bored of playing ranger only


Anput.4620

Recommended Posts

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:But hopefully the complaints are not listened to, except the addition of a dismount skill, that´s fine but otherwise most if not all complaints are not valid and show that most players just want to fight those that have no intention in doing so. It happens in other pvp-mmos (namely bdo) and it should not happen here.

Haven't you also figured there is a reason for this? Any PvP game works like this, because that is how open world PvP games work, there is no involuntary PvP happening because you choose on your own to join WvW, what you said here just shows how flawed the mount is when compared to other open world PvP games.

This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

If you are the kind of person that just wants to player vs door on their PvE build for karma and pips then you have no argument in this discussion really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Anyways, the thread itself is pretty telling ... at least you are trying. You're bored of playing Ranger only ... but you didn't have a problem playing thief only before the Warclaw. HUM ...

There are many ways to dismount if you want to build around it. You will figure it out, just keep trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Warkind.6745 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

I kill guards and camp supervisors all the time too. What's your point?

My point was that I don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight is different from fighting an npc . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

I kill guards and camp supervisors all the time too. What's your point?

My point was that I don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight is different from fighting an npc . . .The NPC always want to fight, its very different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

I get it, you go to WvW to PvE/PvD and just smack guards all day and you like your mount because you can avoid the things you don't like because you think a world PvP mode owes you, sure.

Also why assume i main Thief when i mained Warrior pre-mount?

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

If someone goes into open world PvP they accept that they can be attacked, it is not involuntary. If i join ANY PvP game i accept that i will be engaged in PvP. Literally no player in ANY PvP game wants to fight you if you think theyl lose, so everyone that wins in any PvP game is bad now? Heck, even in sPvP people AFK if they don't want to fight the enemy, enemy is bad for fighting back and doing the 5v4 now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

If someone goes into open world PvP they accept that they can be attacked, it is not involuntary.

Sure, and when they are attacked they have options available to them as players, like fighting back or running away. This isn't new, thieves have been doing it for years . . .

Literally no player in ANY PvP game wants to fight you if you think theyl lose,

Holy poop is this not true. Fights I think I'm going to lose are frequently the most fun, esp when they work out in my favor . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

If someone goes into open world PvP they accept that they can be attacked, it is not involuntary.

Sure, and when they are attacked they have options available to them as players, like fighting back or running away. This isn't new, thieves have been doing it for years . . .

Literally no player in ANY PvP game wants to fight you if you think theyl lose,

Holy poop is this not true. Fights I think I'm going to lose are frequently the most fun, esp when they work out in my favor . . .

Thieves have been doing it by game mechanics and build choices, sacrificing other things, not externally implemented arbitrary unbalanced mechanics, The current state of the mount is simply not balanced, there is no 50/50 of escape chance or engagement and there is zero effort needed to run away, how you can not see that that is simply unbalanced, like. Making someone literally invincible is not balanced.

You can also kill the Thief before they run away, done it many, many times.

Thieves thing is running away, why don't you complain about 70% of people in WvW being Scourges and FB's? They can do 10 times more broken shit than just being annoying and fast. Also why do you think literally every solo player is a daredevil? Everything else is catchable unless you are like a necro, oh wait, so the people complaining are the most broken WvW class of whole PoF, but i never see nerf necros from them? Wierd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

@Gop.8713 said:I still don't understand how fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you is different from fighting an npc . . .

If someone goes into open world PvP they accept that they can be attacked, it is not involuntary.

Sure, and when they are attacked they have options available to them as players, like fighting back or running away. This isn't new, thieves have been doing it for years . . .

Literally no player in ANY PvP game wants to fight you if you think theyl lose,

Holy poop is this not true. Fights I think I'm going to lose are frequently the most fun, esp when they work out in my favor . . .

Thieves have been doing it by game mechanics

The mount is a new game mechanic. It was introduced by anet. It's not like it's a hack or something . . .

The current state of the mount is simply not balanced, there is no 50/50 of escape chance or engagement and there is zero effort needed to run away

I'm pretty sure that's by design tho . . .

You can also kill the Thief before they run away, done it many, many times.

You can kill the mount too. I never really do it bc if someone wants to run away what do I care but ppl do it to me all the time lol . . .

Thieves thing is running away, why don't you complain

I'm not complaining . . .

Also why do you think literally every solo player is a daredevil? Everything else is catchable unless you are like a necro, oh wait, so the people complaining are the most broken WvW class of whole PoF, but i never see nerf necros from them? Wierd.

I don't feel like I see a lot of daredevils solo roaming. Or necros really. Maybe more necros than daredevils, but I'd say it's mostly rangers these days. And mirages ofc. I don't really do a headcount tho, that's just a feeling . . .

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that you're not answering my question ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

The mount is a new game mechanic. It was introduced by anet. It's not like it's a hack or something . . .I'm pretty sure that's by design tho . . .

So why don't people just admit that the mount is bad for a PvP mode but that the real reason behind it is:

yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

The mental gymnastics i see people go through to justify why this games open world PvP mode is better with the warclaw, being different like this compared to every other world PvP game/gamemode in a game are literally insane. Just admit that;

I get it, you go to WvW to PvE/PvD and just smack guards all day and you like your mount because you can avoid the things you don't like because you think a world PvP mode owes you, sure.

I used to see about every class but necro solo roam, now i see barely anyone solo roam and my friends are playing PvP or some random BR game. I only see rangers left now.

If the mount is intended bad design just to appeal to more people then say that but everyone seems to go through gymnastics to find these loopholes on why it is amazing when really it isn't when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general.

I had a game in Smite a while ago where i as a solo just farmed my lane opponent over and over til they where like 7 levels behind and barely worth any gold/xp, should i just not attack them anymore when they massage me to stop ganking them from corners on spawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

The mount is a new game mechanic. It was introduced by anet. It's not like it's a hack or something . . .I'm pretty sure that's by design tho . . .

So why don't people just admit that the mount is bad for a PvP mode but that the real reason behind it is:

I'm pretty sure the mount was introduced to get ppl back to their zergs faster. This seems like a rational motivation to me bc when ppl asked for the ability to hide their comm tags anet said no bc a lot of players won't play if they log in and don't see a tag to follow. So it seems to me if anet thinks having tags for ppl to follow is a good thing then getting ppl to those tags quickly would also be a good thing. It's pretty much a straight line of rational thought, not terribly difficult to follow . . .

I had a game in Smite a while ago where i as a solo just farmed my lane opponent over and over til they where like 7 levels behind and barely worth any gold/xp, should i just not attack them anymore when they massage me to stop ganking them from corners on spawn?

I am not familiar with this 'Smite' game you speak of but you certainly make it sound like the game was letting you know you should consider changing your behavior, yeah . . .

And you still haven't answered my question :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

You're view is wrong then ... Anet directs the game, not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:So wait, you are saying that ANET released the Warclaw into WvW for the sole purpose of selling gem store skins, all the while knowing it was bad for PvP and would lead to the demise of the game mode, thereby sabotaging their efforts to generate revenue?

And you talk about mental gymnastics?

You don't like the Warclaw. That's fine. Nobody is forcing you to like it.ANET wants feedback, and they have already implemented several changes in a rapid fashion. But that doesn't guarantee they will change it into something you like, nor does it mean it will be taken away.

It's up to you to adapt to the new game mode, or quit.

Just like when they nerfed ScourgeJust like when they nerfed DE/stealthJust like when they nerfed Mesmers

Player after player proclaimed the game mode was dead and they would quit, and would be posting a vid of them uninstalling the game on reddit.

And yet, today we still see Scourge, still see DE, and still see Mesmers running about in WvW. Some players quit. Other players adapt. New players enter the game mode. And WvW somehow is still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

The mount is a new game mechanic. It was introduced by anet. It's not like it's a hack or something . . .I'm pretty sure that's by design tho . . .

So why don't people just admit that the mount is bad for a PvP mode but that the real reason behind it is:

I'm pretty sure the mount was introduced to get ppl back to their zergs faster. This seems like a rational motivation to me bc when ppl asked for the ability to hide their comm tags anet said no bc a lot of players won't play if they log in and don't see a tag to follow. So it seems to me if anet thinks having tags for ppl to follow is a good thing then getting ppl to those tags quickly would also be a good thing. It's pretty much a straight line of rational thought, not terribly difficult to follow . . .

I had a game in Smite a while ago where i as a solo just farmed my lane opponent over and over til they where like 7 levels behind and barely worth any gold/xp, should i just not attack them anymore when they massage me to stop ganking them from corners on spawn?

I am not familiar with this 'Smite' game you speak of but you certainly make it sound like the game was letting you know you should consider changing your behavior, yeah . . .

And you still haven't answered my question :)

Howeso? Killing them over and over is rewarding as it prevents them from getting levels, it also allows me to rotate and help the team in teamfights.

What question again?

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Anput.4620 said:This is how open world PvP works, you can get attacked, or attack someone at any time, the current ecosystem is the opposite of any open world PvP games, unless Anet admits the mount is way above the point of balance, which they won't, so it shows flawed design.

OK so Anet implements changes to move away from open world PVP ... and you claim it's flawed design. That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure Anet knows what direction they want the game to take better than you do.

Your comments are just a big joke, yes, they are killing the mode to sell skins to casuals that want to ktrain, that does make the mode worse as a world PvP mode which it was made as, stop deluding yourself and just say that they wanted to cash in on casuals as last resort before the mode dies off.

All i have seen you say over the past couple weeks is ridiculous loopholes to make their design sound not questionable when it clearly is when viewed from the pov of any open world PvP, or even PvP gamer in general, heck, present this to non-Gw2 players from world PvP games and they will think it is ridiculous.

You're view is wrong then ... Anet directs the game, not you.

Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

@Turkeyspit.3965 said:

@Anput.4620 said:So wait, you are saying that ANET released the Warclaw into WvW for the sole purpose of selling gem store skins, all the while knowing it was bad for PvP and would lead to the demise of the game mode, thereby sabotaging their efforts to generate revenue?

And you talk about mental gymnastics?

You don't like the Warclaw. That's fine. Nobody is forcing you to like it.ANET wants feedback, and they have already implemented several changes in a rapid fashion. But that doesn't guarantee they will change it into something you like, nor does it mean it will be taken away.

It's up to you to adapt to the new game mode, or quit.

Just like when they nerfed ScourgeJust like when they nerfed DE/stealthJust like when they nerfed Mesmers

Player after player proclaimed the game mode was dead and they would quit, and would be posting a vid of them uninstalling the game on reddit.

And yet, today we still see Scourge, still see DE, and still see Mesmers running about in WvW. Some players quit. Other players adapt. New players enter the game mode. And WvW somehow is still here.

The main purpose was monetising WvW yes, how do you do this? Appeal to the broadest audiance, so you dumb shit down and handhold people while adding something that is flashy to the detriment of others just so you can sell skins and make your mode even more casual.

Also balance is balance, this isn't balance, i have always been fine, since i started playing with the game, yet now i am not. This is like telling tennis players to go play basketball instead and if they don't like it they can quit, way different from standard balance, i literally can't play the game how i used to, and im not talking about specific builds here, or gear, or a prof, no i'm talking the fundamental way i played the game changed from the ground up.

I haven't seen anyone i know quit over balance changes in this game, while now almost all my roaming friends don't play the mode/game anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Anput.4620" said:Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

No, it actually does, because there isn't a right or wrong here ... the relevant view is the one Anet has because they decide how the game works. Same with EA .. they run their business the way they want, what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant, including the average player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

No, it actually does, because there isn't a right or wrong here ... the relevant view is the one Anet has because they decide how the game works. Same with EA .. they run their business the way they want, what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant, including the average player.

Objective quality and game design exists.

But yeah money is more importyant ofc.

Idc what is "relevant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Anput.4620" said:Idc what is "relevant".

You should because if you speak to what is relevant, then things you say start making sense. It doesn't make sense to think that your perspective on what WvW should be is THE CORRECT way and is what should be done. I mean, clearly your goal is just to be sour and angry ... so yeah I can see how making sense here isn't your goal in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

No, it actually does, because there isn't a right or wrong here ... the relevant view is the one Anet has because they decide how the game works. Same with EA .. they run their business the way they want, what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant, including the average player.

And what were the consequences of running their business the way they want and ignoring advices-feedbacks and concerns of average players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Burnfall.9573 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

No, it actually does, because there isn't a right or wrong here ... the relevant view is the one Anet has because they decide how the game works. Same with EA .. they run their business the way they want, what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant, including the average player.

And what were the consequences of running their business the way they want and ignoring advices-feedbacks and concerns of average players?
They became a billion dollar a year plus company?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Anput.4620" said:Just because Anet holds a view doesn't mean it is the right one, EA also holds lots of "views".

No, it actually does, because there isn't a right or wrong here ... the relevant view is the one Anet has because they decide how the game works. Same with EA .. they run their business the way they want, what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant, including the average player.

And what were the consequences of running their business the way they want and ignoring advices-feedbacks and concerns of average players?
They became a billion dollar a year plus company?

I will respond short and respectively (i don't want to derail thread)

'Following last year’s surprise Worst Company In America victory by Electronic Arts, there was hope that the video game giant would get the message: Stop treating your customers like human piggy banks, and don’t put out so many incomplete and/or broken games...'

-Negatives-

  1. Provide a Product People Want and Like
  2. Sell Your Product at a Reasonable Price
  3. Support the Products You Sell
  4. Making Games for Shareholders, Not Gamers
  5. Unlearned Lessons

In the end, its lost-lost for the company(s) who want to run their business the way they want by ignoring critical advices-feedbacks and concerns of average players

the sad reality and truth is; are some game company(s) careless for their concern average players or to benefit their shareholders more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

The mount is a new game mechanic. It was introduced by anet. It's not like it's a hack or something . . .I'm pretty sure that's by design tho . . .

So why don't people just admit that the mount is bad for a PvP mode but that the real reason behind it is:

I'm pretty sure the mount was introduced to get ppl back to their zergs faster. This seems like a rational motivation to me bc when ppl asked for the ability to hide their comm tags anet said no bc a lot of players won't play if they log in and don't see a tag to follow. So it seems to me if anet thinks having tags for ppl to follow is a good thing then getting ppl to those tags quickly would also be a good thing. It's pretty much a straight line of rational thought, not terribly difficult to follow . . .

I had a game in Smite a while ago where i as a solo just farmed my lane opponent over and over til they where like 7 levels behind and barely worth any gold/xp, should i just not attack them anymore when they massage me to stop ganking them from corners on spawn?

I am not familiar with this 'Smite' game you speak of but you certainly make it sound like the game was letting you know you should consider changing your behavior, yeah . . .

And you still haven't answered my question :)

Howeso? Killing them over and over is rewarding as it prevents them from getting levels, it also allows me to rotate and help the team in teamfights.

What question again?How is fighting a player that doesn't want to fight different from fighting an npc . . ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My lord, the victims in this thread who are attacked when they don't want to PvP. I'm one of those people that's too nice for my own good, I give others the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't. And you know what happens when I let someone pass me untouched, or when I don't add to a fight against a player who's having a 1v1/is outnumbered? I see them 3 minutes later with friends and they gank me.

My own stupidity for expecting anything different so I'm not playing the "why me" card. But this is why you get attacked when you obviously don't want to fight. Because you can't tell me you won't turn around and try to attack someone as soon as you outnumber them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...