Jump to content
  • Sign Up

I'm getting bored of playing ranger only


Anput.4620

Recommended Posts

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said: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.

Haha sooooo much this ^ that or they'll complain about bankers all day long but have no problem chasing down a solo or small group with their giant zerg as has happened to me many times and I mean a large chunk of a zerg chasing me far. It's all good when ur the one ganking lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Burnfall.9573 said: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?

Honestly, fearmongering isn't necessary. Anet will direct the game in a way they want and of course, they will direct it in a way that will maintain it as a business. Implying they can't do that AND listen to players is ridiculous. To be honest, Warclaw IS Anet listening to players because it does fix some problems players expressed with WvW ... AND directing the game in a way that will maintain it as a business as well. I know the OP thinks different because he think it's some clever tactic to continually impose his own ideas on Anet about how the game should work as if there are some rules about how that's done ... and he's enforcing them ... I can only assume there is a lack of business acumen there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 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 . . ?

The player character is controlled by a player making it player versus player combat whilt the NPC is an AI mob.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Burnfall.9573 said: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?

Honestly, fearmongering isn't necessary. Anet will direct the game in a way they want and of course, they will direct it in a way that will maintain it as a business. Implying they can't do that AND listen to players is ridiculous. To be honest, Warclaw IS Anet listening to players because it does fix some problems players expressed with WvW ... AND directing the game in a way that will maintain it as a business as well. I know the OP thinks different because he think it's some clever tactic to continually impose his own ideas on Anet about how the game should work as if there are some rules about how that's done ... and he's enforcing them ... I can only assume there is a lack of business acumen there.

I care about the game, not Anets profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:I care about the game, not Anets profits.

That's nice ... so you're imply Anet doesn't care about the game now? I'm pretty sure they do ... See, that's the problem ... Anet has to care about both, otherwise the game you care about wouldn't exist. This isn't a charity ... As I suspected, your business acumen is lacking.

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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Sums it about up, especially the overnight part when i was playing and having fun the night before the patch, wish i played more on that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.
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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

You wouldn't recognize a healthy conversation if it slapped you in the face because you're too busy arguing.Mount conversations are a prime example: people ask for mount to be balanced a little and you jump on your horse about mounts are here to stay. No one asked for it to be removed but you forget these simple things because you think its something to argue even going as far as to tell people to leave or adapt even though they have been playing the mode well before mounts whereas you only just started when mounts came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Burnfall.9573 said: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?

Honestly, fearmongering isn't necessary. Anet will direct the game in a way they want and of course, they will direct it in a way that will maintain it as a business. Implying they can't do that AND listen to players is ridiculous. To be honest, Warclaw IS Anet listening to players because it does fix some problems players expressed with WvW ... AND directing the game in a way that will maintain it as a business as well. I know the OP thinks different because he think it's some clever tactic to continually impose his own ideas on Anet about how the game should work as if there are some rules about how that's done ... and he's enforcing them ... I can only assume there is a lack of business acumen there.

Here is an example. It's like having drivers complaining that the road they are driving in are broken-unsafe. So instead of the city repairing the road; they instead the city offer them horses to ride in the road.

Where is the results in that? Absolutely None!!

WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

In the real world; you know what they call this? Dishonest and Deceptive practice

The only fearmongering, is The Truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@Burnfall.9573 said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Burnfall.9573" said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

In the real world; you know what they call this? Dishonest and Deceptive practice

The only fearmongering, is The TruthThe claim that WvW has been "broken and toxic for 7 years" is the only thing here thats dishonest, deceptive and a blatant lie.Anet has done many, many changes/fixes to improve it over the years and the fact that many, many thousands of players still play is a testament to the strength of the mode. Is there still work to do? Sure. But just because its not your perfect vision of WvW doesnt mean you have to reject reality.

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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@"Burnfall.9573" said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

I never said that.I said your toxic for the exact reasons you just did now.

Some of us are happy with mounts and want to voice an opinion on how to balance it a little better but its hard when users like yourself jump in just to say "kitten off, adapt, I like the game this way now so you can eff off" mentality, its toxic af and breeds more toxicity.

I agreed with you and your initial reaction was to argue it, another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@Burnfall.9573 said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

I never said that.I said your toxic for the exact reasons you just did now.

No you didn't ... you said the game change is making extreme toxicity ... and it's not coming from players like me because I'm not making the QQ threads about mounts. I didn't make that game change; I didn't make all the mount QQ posts ... it was the people complaining about the change the created the toxicity. There isn't anything toxic about acknowledging Anet controls the game changes and players have to adapt to them ... that's just ridiculous. Don't deflect here.

And no, you aren't agreeing with me because I don't agree that Anet's direction is causing toxicity (it's the players complaining doing that) or that the direction is killing off the player base. As long as we aren't using data, then I will say the change is building the player base, based on the same way you determine it's killing it ... by just playing.

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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@"Burnfall.9573" said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

I never said that.I said your toxic for the exact reasons you just did now.

No you didn't ... you said the game change is making extreme toxicity ... and it's not coming from players like me because I'm not making the QQ threads about mounts. I didn't make that game change; I didn't make all the mount QQ posts ... it was the people complaining about the change the created the toxicity. There isn't anything toxic about acknowledging Anet controls the game changes and players have to adapt to them ... that's just ridiculous. Don't deflect here.

And no, you aren't agreeing with me because I don't agree that Anet's direction is causing toxicity (it's the players complaining doing that) or that the direction is killing off the player base. As long as we aren't using data, then I will say the change is building the player base, based on the same way you determine it's killing it ... by just playing.

You admit to heaps of people making threads and you still continue with "everything is fine"..Do you not understand the contradictions there or just choose to ignore it?You're also in every one of those threads telling people where to go even for just asking for a little bit of balance.

I never said you made those posts either, focus and re-read what I said because you're doing it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@"Burnfall.9573" said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

I never said that.I said your toxic for the exact reasons you just did now.

No you didn't ... you said the game change is making extreme toxicity ... and it's not coming from players like me because I'm not making the QQ threads about mounts. I didn't make that game change; I didn't make all the mount QQ posts ... it was the people complaining about the change the created the toxicity. There isn't anything toxic about acknowledging Anet controls the game changes and players have to adapt to them ... that's just ridiculous. Don't deflect here.

And no, you aren't agreeing with me because I don't agree that Anet's direction is causing toxicity (it's the players complaining doing that) or that the direction is killing off the player base. As long as we aren't using data, then I will say the change is building the player base, based on the same way you determine it's killing it ... by just playing.

You admit to heaps of people making threads and you still continue with "everything is fine"..Do you not understand the contradictions there or just choose to ignore it?You're also in every one of those threads telling people where to go even for just asking for a little bit of balance.

That's untrue ... I'm not against Anet making balance changes to Warclaw at all and I don't think everything is fine; I don't think everything catastrophic either, like the Op would like everyone to believe.

What I said still stands here ... I don't agree that Anet's change make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base. Don't get all uppity with me because you quote me to support things you think that I don't agree with. I'm simply clarifying so people don't misunderstand what I said because you used it in a way that was not inline with what I meant.

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.

For once you said something I can agree with..ANET can take the game what ever direction they want even if its killing off thier player base and producing extreme toxicity.Some will defend it, the rest who have been loyal for years will try and speak up about it before leaving the mode and probably the game.

Hey, if you had data to show this is what has happened instead of guessing the overall impact Anet's changes have on the game because you don't like them, your post might have been worth the time you took to make it.

You dont need data for that, you just had to play the mode premount. Not all of us started WvW when the mount came out like you did.

That makes no sense. You don't know how many people do or don't play just because you play the game; you DO need data if you are going to make those claims, otherwise, your just making up things to suit your arguments.

If there is extreme toxicity, it's not from the people that joined WvW because of the mount or after its introduction... it's from the people complaining about it ... like you. How ironic you complain about extreme toxicity when people like you are the source. /shrug. Doesn't really change what I said ... Anet is going to change the game in the direction they want; it's expected there will be shifts in populations when that happens, so it's not an argument to not make changes anyways.

Its actually players like you who are toxic.

So I'm the one bring toxicity to the WvW by complaining about mounts? That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with mounts, I'm not making up false truths about how many people have left because of them. I made no 'sky is falling' threads about it. I'm not toxic just because I don't agree with you.

@"Burnfall.9573" said:WvW has been broken and toxic; for 7 years. The concern players had begged Anet to repair it and to make improvement to it so it can be healthy competitive and fun. Instead; Anet offer them mounts

And mounts fix some of the problems that people have been complaining about. Maybe not the problems you want fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't address some of them.

I never said that.I said your toxic for the exact reasons you just did now.

No you didn't ... you said the game change is making extreme toxicity ... and it's not coming from players like me because I'm not making the QQ threads about mounts. I didn't make that game change; I didn't make all the mount QQ posts ... it was the people complaining about the change the created the toxicity. There isn't anything toxic about acknowledging Anet controls the game changes and players have to adapt to them ... that's just ridiculous. Don't deflect here.

And no, you aren't agreeing with me because I don't agree that Anet's direction is causing toxicity (it's the players complaining doing that) or that the direction is killing off the player base. As long as we aren't using data, then I will say the change is building the player base, based on the same way you determine it's killing it ... by just playing.

You admit to heaps of people making threads and you still continue with "everything is fine"..Do you not understand the contradictions there or just choose to ignore it?You're also in every one of those threads telling people where to go even for just asking for a little bit of balance.

That's untrue ... I'm not against Anet making balance changes to Warclaw at all and I don't think everything is fine; I don't think everything catastrophic either, like the Op would like everyone to believe.

What I said still stands here ... I don't agree that Anet's change make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base. Don't get all uppity with me because you quote me to support things you think that I don't agree with. I'm simply clarifying so people don't misunderstand what I said because you used it in a way that was not inline with what I meant.

So when you said this is Anets game and they can take the direction which ever way they want, it had an entirely different meaning to you other than what you said?Thats not how communication works. But then again youre the same guy who didnt know putting an S on the end of something makes it plural, maybe you haven't finished school yet so you got the benefit of doubt here because I was starting to think you just say things without comprehending what you're saying.

I still agree with you, I know you don't like it which is why you're arguing but you are absolutely right, this is Anets game. If they want to turn a warzone into something friendlier than PvE then they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 said:I still agree with you, I know you don't like it which is why you're arguing but you are absolutely right, this is Anets game. If they want to turn a warzone into something friendlier than PvE then they can.

Really? So you don't think Anet's game changes make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base now? Finally, a convert!!! SUCCESS!!! I mean, that's what we are talking about here.

If you agree that it's Anet's game and they can do what they want (unlike the OP), that's good because it's an obvious fact. There isn't anything to disagree with there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:I still agree with you, I know you don't like it which is why you're arguing but you are absolutely right, this is Anets game. If they want to turn a warzone into something friendlier than PvE then they can.

Really? So you don't think Anet's game changes make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base now? Finally, a convert!!! SUCCESS!!!

What?You really need to read and focus man and actually understand the words being used.

If you're trolling then 0/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 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 . . ?

The player character is controlled by a player making it player versus player combat whilt the NPC is an AI mob.:pWhat I am asking you to do is explain what you get out of fighting a player that doesn't want to fight you vs. fighting an npc. What appeals to you about it? When you decide to fight a player that doesn't want to fight what is your motivation . . ?

I'm asking bc it seems like a lot of players regret that this type of fighting is less common after mounts while I actually appreciate that mounts have removed a lot of those fights. So I'm trying to figure out what the ppl who want to use their roaming build to fight zerglings or pver's doing dailies feel like they are missing out on now that those fights are harder to find . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:I still agree with you, I know you don't like it which is why you're arguing but you are absolutely right, this is Anets game. If they want to turn a warzone into something friendlier than PvE then they can.

Really? So you don't think Anet's game changes make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base now? Finally, a convert!!! SUCCESS!!!

What?You really need to read and focus man and actually understand the words being used.

If you're trolling then 0/10.

It's not trolling ... you continually tell me you agree with me and I continually tell you I don't think Anet's game changes make toxicity or that they are killing off the player base. What's the problem here?

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...