Danger Ferret.6342
-
Posts
134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Danger Ferret.6342
-
-
31 minutes ago, Ozymandias.7561 said:
How long did it take you to get to 300% and did you do anything special to get there? I'm just consuming all of the luck that I generate from salvaging and 300% looks like it will take years. Thanks.
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.
-
On 5/21/2021 at 7:31 PM, Zebulous.2934 said:
personally I dislike aviator boxes far more than I dislike mesmer portals. At least the portals are limited to how far the mesmer can travel during the duration. I can't really do anything about the T pose inflicted by an aviator box.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, DeanBB.4268 said:
Which does nothing to prevent that annoying person from running in circles around you, waving, jumping up and down... I've had that kind of harassment already in WvW with no dueling option in the game.
Add my tick mark to the "no" column.
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.
-
7
-
-
5 minutes ago, Petrie.1749 said:
I have several mini icons that I can not "Add to Wardrobe" when I right-click it. It shows greyed out. Only does it to some of them. Also happens to some weapon skins.. This is so unnerving. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. getting tired of seeing them in my bag and in my bank tabs.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Sylvyn.4750 said:
One thing that keeps GW2 back is that the very thing it was built around and sets it apart from many other MMOs, WvW/guild wars/realm-vs-realm, is one of the least supported game modes at this point. Now they focus on PvE content that all other MMOs already have in spades, so they are trying harder to assimilate rather than stand out.
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?
-
6 minutes ago, Muzzy.4382 said:
- There's a heart on one of the LWS4 maps where you have to kill prairie dogs whilst being stealth. Whilst stealth and using a ranged weapon your still not able to kill them.
- I have two different builds on my elementalist and so, two different sets of equipment. The dyes on the second equipment carry over to the first equipment when switching.
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.
-
13 hours ago, BlueJin.4127 said:
What you were finding funny is irrelevant and my analogy perfectly describes your overreactions that have nothing to do with the problem. Some people play illegitimately with multiple accounts, so you think that justifies going after log-in rewards, which would affect all legitimate players, multiple accounts or not, even though that has nothing to do with illegitimate actions.
Also, if a dog bites someone, you think it's OK to shoot it. The vast majority of dog bites are harmless and do not even escalate to dangerous situations. Shooting a dog for simply biting somebody is a major overreaction and can get you into some serious trouble. The only exception is if it's a very dangerous situation with no safe way to de-escalate the situation (like a large and dangerous dog is viciously mauling a small child and nobody is around who can safely stop the dog, for example).
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?
-
17 hours ago, Phobia.9651 said:
Please implement the cursor suggestions that have suggested already in this thread, by allowing players to adjust the size and colour plus giving the option for an animated cursor.
Secondly, I would like a character selection screen overhaul by making the character list vertical (on the lefthand side of the screen) and giving sorting options for your characters, namely: last played, playtime, age, race, profession, level, alphabetic, and custom/manual.
Thirdly, I would like an update to the castbar. Add the name of the spell you are casting/channeling on top of the bar, add a numerical countdown (for casted spells) or a countup (for channeled spells) to the side of the bar, give options for position and size of the bar (personally I would like the bar to be bigger and higher up on the screen).
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:
How does that make me a hypocrite? I'm not defending his work, I'm talking about your stupid race-baiting that's irrelevant to anything. Nothing about that makes me somehow a hypocrite just because it involves the person that was a philosopher.
You don't seem to be able to communicate without calling people names. This isn't the win you think it is.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 5/28/2021 at 7:43 AM, Fleabite.7528 said:
Plenty of time and plenty of resource appears to have been devoted, therefore, to meeting the stated launch goal. So please do stick to the plan Anet, and don't delay.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:
Yeah, I see that excuse thrown around alot.
But as a fact, it really doesn't matter that the pet "is different". Something is wrong here and needs changing one way or another.
Look at the game. In literally ANY situation in the game, if you can activate a skill by pressing a button, it is shown in the UI. Skills from your class? All shown in UI. You can interact with an object in the world by pressing [F]? Shown in the UI. You have a special skill available during a boss fight to bypass mechanics? Shown in the UI.
You can activate F2 and F4 as a ranger in downstate? Not shown in the UI.
This is clearly a mistake in one direction or another. Either it is a bug and they should fix it by disabling F2 and F4 to get activated in downstate (which I think makes the most sense, especially since soulbeast is also supposed to not have access to pet swap in combat anyway).
Or it is an intended feature, in which case Anet needs to add an UI to communicate to the players that this is possible. It makes no sense that literally every time you can activate skills it is shown visually in the game except here. And players shouldn't have to find out that this is possible by accidentally pressing the buttons and then noticing that they still work, even if the UI is deactivated.
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.)
-
1
-
-
Just now, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
Ha. A lot of fancy-schmancy talk going on here.
I will just leave this:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 🐸
As a D&D player, I'm now terrified.
-
9
-
-
24 minutes ago, rabenpriester.7129 said:
I think you just don't notice.
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.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
Anorexia is not, nor has it ever been, the standard of beauty. That's just misandrist lies. Hell, my sister is on the very-thin side, and most guys just think there's something wrong with her. When I was a kid, the big model around town was Tyra Banks, who weighed in at 160-165lbs. Society, by and large, does not like skeletons.
I call it magic as a direct insult, because that is what subjectivity ultimately comes down to. Knowing the causes for someone's standards of beauty and desires allows one to exercise scrutiny on those causes, as well as exercise a degree of control over them. You can compare and contrast, evaluate those standards, judge them on internal and external consistency, and evaluate their accuracy and their outcomes. I'd argue that this is ultimately good, but the caveat is that this all leads to a series of moral obligations that one has to fulfill. First, the obligation of self-evaluation. Second, the obligation to attempt to be beautiful. Third, the obligation to spread this wisdom.
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."
-
2
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Mighty warrrior.9457 said:
Same here have the same problem and made a bug report 3 days ago, heard nothing.
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Danger Ferret.6342 said:
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 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.
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
When someone says that beauty is subjective, they're taking advantage of a lack of information to try and make an argument. There are some philosophical underpinnings and desires that go into a person's view of aesthetic morality, and if you know what those underpinnings are then what they want/like makes logical sense. It only seems like it is random and magical if you don't know those factors. Take... humans, for an example. When it comes to standards of beauty in humans, it all ultimately represents one thing: health. This is done for a few reasons, particularly to avoid disease and check for fertility, and it isn't always super straightforward, but all around the world the prime consideration for beauty is health. Differences in aesthetic ideals between cultures comes down to geological determinance: the features that were important for survival in that area become the "healthy" features, which is what is looked for.
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:
I literally did forgot my password just to be able to comment on this giving my full and enthusiastic support for this motion, finally someone who agrees with me
Also, minimising the commentary re: Kant on beauty as "just repeating some dead German guy" is itself poor critical thought in my view. Philosophy is a vital tool on a civilisational level. Philosophy is more vital to understanding the human experience than science is. Science has its limits at what observations can be reproduced. Philosophy goes well beyond that and this is a perfect example.
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.
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Danger Ferret.6342 said:
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.
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.
-
3
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:
When criticizing other people's taste, never share your own. Defending them will be pointless: people don't care about being right, they just want you to be wrong - at any cost.
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.
-
7
-
3
-
Login Rewards, Multiboxing, and Bots
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
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 🙂