Danger Ferret.6342

oh, ok. Well, I can't bring myself to have a reaction to a hypothetical dog shooting, but thanks for the perspective. As to the rest, it doesn't seem like anything inherent in multiple accounts is giving any player an advantage they didn't buy, if it turns out to be an advantage at all. I can see the objection against multi-boxing purely on the grounds that maps fill up with non-participants who then prevent players from joining, but that seems to be a somewhat separate issue from just having multiple accounts in the first place. Thanks again for the input 🙂

I've been playing for about a little under a year. I didn't realize that 300% was obtainable until recently. In the past two months or so, I've gone from 93% to 163% through salvaging everything that drops I don't want to keep. Even though the numbers needed to level your luck keep increasing, the luck you've just gained will improve the drops you get and more valuable chunks of luck being salvaged more frequently, so it doesn't really feel like leveling now takes any longer than it did 50% ago ago. Though ask me again when I hit 263%, and I might feel differently.

I'm not sure in what context you mean you can't do anything about the t-pose, since simply clicking on the aviator box again removes the effect.

I love the story. I don't need to like every character, or every bit of character development (though honestly I generally do enjoy what I experience). If this was just a set of fancy combat mechanics, it might suit some players, but I know I'd be just a soulbeast-shaped cloud of cartoon smoke as I bolted for better climes.

Agreed. And the insistence of the op that we will all love it if we are forced to be exposed to it does nothing to change my opinion, nor does the way they seem to attack any other opinion as fear-based, or scared. It's just ... weird. At any rate, there's a reason GW2 isn't WoW. I hope it stays that way.

Thank you! That goes for me too. I'm assuming - since the skins/items are unlocked and usable - we can just delete the items, but it's really annoying to have to type out their names, and having icons for already unlocked skins/novelties hanging about has to be a bug.

As a PvE player uninterested in WvW I stay clear of it. But it sucks that it isn't getting good support as a game mode from the people who prefer it. You'd think that more supported game modes would mean more diverse experiences from which potential players could choose, but I suspect another poster has it right when they suggest this is a profit driven decision based on a cost benefit analysis. As an aside, one of my pet peeves with the game is that in order to complete legendary weapons, I apparently *must* do a WvW rewards track to obtain the Gift of Battle, which doesn't appear to be something I can purchase ingame, nor can I otherwise purchase a gift that already has Battle as a component of it. Are PvE players invading WvW maps to complete a single reward track having any effect? On one hand, I can see how having a whole bunch of people only set on one goal then leaving being disruptive. On the other, are people stopping by for the achievement and staying for the gameplay?

If I recall the mechanics of the heart you're discussing, you can't just grant yourself stealth using a skill. I believe you have to have it put on you by hiding in the tall grass. I was able to complete the heart that way, but it has been quite a while so the situation may have changed. You might already be doing this, so apologies if this was nothing new.

There are probably different rules for addressing dog bites and attacks depending where you live. For instance, where I live, you can shoot a dog if you feel it is a threat to yours or your pet's safety even if it doesn't attack you. You might have to prove in civil court that it was warranted (if the owner of said dog sues you), but that's about it. I'm not advocating running around shooting Fifi or anything. Just saying those laws vary greatly from place to place. Also, the multiple account thing puzzles me. I've often wondered why people buy multiple accounts since so many ingame rewards are account-wide, and also since then you have to buy everything (potentially) multiple times. It never occurred to me that some people see that as a financial advantage over players with single accounts. I still don't get it, but like you, I dislike a sytem-wide crackdown on legitimate players to discourage some people from misusing the system. There will always be people trying to manipulate any gaming system to their advantage, with a small portion of them really misusing it to do so. Extending this notion forward, if every illegitimate account use was dealt with this way, would there be anything left of GW2 besides a warning button and a legal disclaimer?

These all sound like good ideas to me, especially the first one. I'm often wasting time in combat rolling my mouse furiously around on the pad trying to distinguish the pointer from 100,000 emitted particles and movement on the screen.

You don't seem to be able to communicate without calling people names. This isn't the win you think it is.

This might normally be true, but there may have been contributing factors limiting Anet's ability to produce in the past, say ... 15 months or so.

I was so clueless this happened that I completely misunderstood the scope of the discussion, mistaking "downstate" for "downtime", and a I main a Soulbeast. I just did try out those skills while downed, and sure enough they worked. It does feel completely incorrect to have them present while undocumented and unaccounted for in the UI, and as much as I love any edge I can get ... I felt a little dirty summoning my moa while bleeding out on the floor. (But only a little.)

As a D&D player, I'm now terrified.

I'm not saying there aren't unrealistic expectations for men to live up to in society, but I've never felt unusually burdened by any societal expectation that I comply with them. Like, for example, I've never felt compelled to wear makeup to work because a boss expects it, or to spend time in a gym because anyone other than myself wants me to do so. No one has ever insisted that I smile because I just look so much prettier when I do.

Misandrism is the hatred of men. Men usually aren't burdened with the expectations of living up to unrealistic body images. Perhaps you meant to call me misogynistic instead? I can point to decades of rail thin models being the standard of beauty, from Twiggy on. Only more recently have beauty magazines portrayed more realistically proportioned women, and yes, Tyra Banks had something to do with it. It was a big deal a while back, so you can claim it's just me, but it isn't. And nor am I a "misandrist" in any case. Your willfully insulting notions on subjectivity have been so noted. At least you're honest enough to admit your intent is to insult. Is this a good example of you attempting to "be beautiful"? Since you set out to be insulting, I didn't bother to read much of the rest of what you had to offer. Seemed like a low signal/noise ratio and mostly a regurgitation of outmoded Catholic doctrine combined with Parler talking points, and after calling my views on female models "misandry", well... Might as well have just said: "Everyone but me is stupid and wrong."

Just in case you (or anyone else) missed it, the issue should be fixed in Tuesday's release, and the current metas will move to Side stories where you can still complete them at any time, so there's no need to feel like time is going to run out due to a borked achievement.

I'm going to conclude my portion of this conversation with the following notes: The OP initially postulated, probably as a joke, that people not conforming to that player's ideas of beauty should be banned from the game. Poster than went on to claim that beauty was objective, and attempted to claim inherent superiority over the opinions of others by trying to form a firm tether between poster's opinions and objective reality, thus placing them beyond the realm of argument into the land of truth. All of this while claiming to be a proponent of philosophical discussion and critical thought, however none of the OP's posts - or any of those supporting that opinion - have provided one bit of evidence that philosophy is an inherently superior pursuit, or displayed one bit of critical thought. The OP also dismissed any possible arguments as an attempt to prove OP wrong at any cost, thus effectively refusing to consider any divergent opinion. Which is all well and good, I suppose. But we've also been treated to "Western Civilization is inherently superior" (I would have to go back to read again, but were the enumerated reasons accomplishments of philosophers or engineers?) in response to a charge of Eurocentrism ("My bigotry, like my philosophy, is correct because the things I believe are just inherently superior.") I think it's worth fighting against those opinions, if philosophy means anything at all. But getting back to the original point of the post, which I now wonder if it was humorously intended at all: if the OP can't stand to be around the less aesthetically inclined, it might be more useful to play single-player games where the OP doesn't have to be bothered by anything that looks or sounds like something less than beautiful, which is now I suppose, a crime against the natural order or something. This all sounds a little too game eugenics Ubermensch-y for me. And sure, it's just a game. But who wants to play a game with people who think they can dictate beauty as they are just inherently better suited to do so, having a superior understanding than I, because I - disagreeing with their premise - must believe in .... magic? I mean.. where do you go from there? It all sounds like an attempt by some people to make others feel unwelcome. In my 55 years of life, one philosophical notion that I've taken to heart is that it is much easier to control my own behavior than the behavior of others. Were I to need aesthetic purity surrounding me in order to mercilessly slaughter ettins and bathe in their gory remains, I would probably try to create it myself, rather than haughtily demanding anyone who displeases me get the hell out of my game. But that's me, and I'm just a stupid boomer with a physics degree. It's probably a much better outcome for the game if the self-styled philosophers win, and all other impure forms are forced to comply or vacate.

An interesting argument. One wonders why the anorexic supermodel has been held for decades as the standard for female beauty when it is anything but healthy, either emotionally or physically. Or why women are having to work so hard to change that. Also, as a gay man, I can tell you that "fertility" has very little to do with my personal standards of beauty. Reducing someone else's argument to a belief in randomness and magic seems more like an ad hominem than a serious argument, since I've seen zero people make a case for "magic" as the cause of beauty's subjectivity. But perhaps that's easier to argue than what people have actually written.

I'm happy to say I love Aurene, Taimi, Gorrik, and the whole cheesy, wonderful story. It doesn't ask too much of me, and I'm amused by the characters. If they want to change it up and steer in a different direction, that's cool too.

I sympathize with the annoyance factor as a frequent Octovine combatant, but I've found I can easily bypass aviator boxes and portals by either clicking on the chest itself (if it's visible), or just waiting a moment or two for the hordes to clear before looting the chests, so I can see everything clearly. The only time I ever "fall" for it is if I have an extremely unlikely infusion on the brain. I'm afraid any restrictions on using items like aviator boxes would wind up looking something like: "Congratulations! Here's your new fun festival item. Spread it around. *Do not use near chests, crates, things that look like chests, people who might be thinking about chests... or you may be banned from the game without further warning." OK... a little ridiculous, but the point of these items is to spread a little light-hearted cheer. I'm sorry they stress you out the way some people are using them. If ANet were to take any real action to restrict the use of these items, I think far and away the easiest solution would be to just remove them from the game, and as much as they can be misused, I'd hate to see that happen.

Minimizing the mentioning of Kant wasn't presented as critical thought; it was presented as an example of how its champion in this thread was unable to produce it. Philosophy going beyond science is a very onanistic notion partial to most students of philosophy. The need to rank philosophy as the end all and be all of intellectual endeavors is the very closure critical thought and philosophy are supposed to lead us past. Scientists, at least, admit they don't know every damned thing in the universe. Waiting for philosophers to catch up. On the other hand, perhaps you are right. In which case, it should be child's play to actually utilize critical thought to prove the superiority of philosophy over other intellectual endeavors, rather than just declare it to be so because philosophers consider things others don't. Philatelists consider things other don't. That doesn't make all stamp collectors geniuses. At any rate, I look forward to reading the proof.

I'll also add looking up good builds on metabattle to decide what works best for you. One word of caution I'll pass along that someone passed along to me. Make sure the build you choose (if you do model your build after one you find there) is designed for your style of play. They have a lot of specialized builds for various classes, so if you're going to be doing mostly open world stuff, pick a build designed for that.

Because I'm bored, and because it's raining, and because actually applying a little logic seems like a good way to wake up, here's my tl;dr take on the "objectivity" of beauty. If beauty is objective, it must exist independently of the observer. It is therefore an object, which has physical properties, or it is the property of other objects. As I have never seen a pile of beauty, I'm going to assume that beauty - if objectively defined - exists as a property of objects, like inertia perhaps (but the similarity is only in that they are both properties). I think we can stipulate that some things are more or less beautiful than others. The comparative beauty of two objects is often a matter of debate. We can think of beauty as a property of objects and that it has a scale of magnitude. Therefore, it should be quantifiable. Sit two people down in front of a spicy dish that is mixed homogeneously so that every bite contains the same amount of spice, and one may find it too spicy, while the other finds it too bland. However, give them a similar dish with more or less of the exact same spice, and they should agree on whether the new dish is spicier or less spicy than the previous one. They may experience the magnitude differently, but the more or less relationship should hold true, since there is in fact more or less spice in the food and the same people are experiencing it in the same way. Similarly, even if two or more people have different reactions to a "beautiful" object as to just how beautiful it is, they should agree on the relative beauty of various objects. One may find the Mona Lisa very beautiful and another not it beautiful at all, but if beauty is truly an objective property of matter, then everyone should recognize the presence of more or less of it, either through direct observation or some standard of measurement. To disprove beauty as an objective reality, all one has to do is find two or more people who disagree on the relative beauty of any two objects. If both don't agree that the Sistine Chapel is more or less beautiful than the Aurora Borealis, then they are subjectively disagreeing, and not commenting on an objective property of either object. But both will insist they are right, and be unable to offer any direct metric to prove it.

For someone so fond of critical thought, you seem unable to move beyond "I'm right because I say so." So much for philosophical discussion.