Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Imba.9451

Members
  • Content Count

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Imba.9451

  1. I'd dig a election campain, with Kiel wearing a MAGA-Cap and shouting "MAKE ASCALON GREAT AGAIN" towards a big crowd with 0 Charr in it. 10/10, woul vote for her.
  2. To be fair, not every expansion needs a big new feature imho. I am fine with a good campain, interesting maps and fun bosses. Hyping up skiffs and fishing like they were a game changing expansion though is pretty sad. It`s a little something, nothing more.
  3. I can only see myself fishing while chatting with people over discord with nothing else to do but waiting for something better to to do. And if I am not waiting for someone do do something in GW2, I will probably never start GW2 in order to fish but play one of the games on my ever increasing backlog on steam.
  4. Thats like saying "You can play GW2 without internet. You just have to imagine it."
  5. When some people come up with it again every so often, and some people argue against this, there is no way to tell the general consensus regarding the whole playerbase. Thats entirely up in your head. And you seemingly tend towards exaggerating thing (very heavily), you are exactly what my post initially adressed: Some people being loud does not mean they are in the majority. Heck, no. I always get as far away from RP'lers as possible, or mute the chat. It's annoying to everyone I know. So your statement is, again, factually wrong. Wow. A feature thats in the game has an
  6. We do not have aggressive mobs in real life that need a beating tho. So that example is a little far-fetched. I really do not see how someones game experience is affected by two people dueling. I mean, usually people do not even care for whoever runs beside them in open world anyway. We do our thing, tag our mobs, yadda yadda. If you are affected by two people dueling, there is no reason not to be affected by a person smashing mobs nearby. Based on audio, thats basically the same thing. Edit: And, again, or else people gonna think I actually am in favour of 1v1, be
  7. Asking this when when quoting a post in wich i state that this implementation is probably NOT worth the time is pure mockery at this point and accurately describes this thread. Additionally, don't argue with hypothectial percentages.
  8. No. But I adressed this excat issue in my post, wich you seemingly neither read nor understood.
  9. So you speak for everyone now? Guess we do not need the forum anymore then. Honestly though, it doesn't. People in this thread a basically just a loud minority of maybe 5-10 people. I'd be pretty sure that most players wouldn't care. Still doesn't make it a worthwhile implementation, just saying the the "arguments" in this thread are 99% "I don't want this and most of the other players who do not speak up probably don't want this as well."
  10. Same. First crash at round 2, shortly after it started, second crash in round 3, again shortly after it started.
  11. I don't disagree with the existance of a cash shop. I disagree with selling lootboxes and ingame "time savers".
  12. If the people answering here are 99% of the PvE Playerbase, then the game has much bigger problems than 1v1. Bad analogy. 1v1 duels disrupt noone. People RP'ing in a PvP match (wich is a team gamemode) do.
  13. I personally hope for MORE bosses like Liadri to be added to the game. It took me quite a few tries until I beat her and Turai, but I really enjoyed it.
  14. Noone says it's absurd. We simply say that the reasoning is the same, no matter if you fight other players or NPC's. Because fighting an NPC who asks you to "show your strength!" or to "help him train!" is ultimately the same thing as 2 players fighting with this as as an ingame lore justification, because in the end, both are fictional characters. And lets be honest: There isn't much involvement in the overall "story" for most of the NPC's either. They are there. They have a short dialogue as alibi-reason to fight you. Thats not story. That hardly even is considered to be lore.
  15. No, because it's literally in the game right now. We get to fight pact members and other allies all the time for hearts and Hero points. Yeah, and there are ways to tie it in. Ways that are already in the game.
  16. It's actually very simple: You started the whole debate about "why would we fight each other in the open world?" We gave you reasons for how that could be adressed by something that is already in the game. At this point, all you do is defending your point forthe sake of not being "wrong". There are so many reasons for why 1v1 in the OW will probably never happen and why Anet wouldn't want to implement it, but the lack of a tie-in for this feature into the story is not one of them.
  17. Nope. The logic is, that GW2 is a live service, wich is evolving. Was there a reason for Balthazar to appear in the story? Not until Anet wrote in a reason. I really dunno why this does even have to be pointed out. It's just common sense.
  18. The story will support it when the corresponding story is implemented. You are basically saying that there should not be a story reason because there is no story reason now (Wich is wrong, because there is a reason in the game RIGHT NOW, as pointed out several times by now.) Thats one of those non-arguments I talked about earlier.
  19. Totally agree. Every other argument in this thread is either weak or a non-argument entirely.
  20. Yeah, and sometimes social expectations are not healthy for some people. Or that there is only one way to behave, else you have no right to exist. I prefer character over race-sterotypes. Not gonna say that Braham is a good character (hell, he isn't...), but just having sterotypical Norn, sterotypical Charr and stereotypical Asura would be much more bothersome. Heck, one can even make the argument that Taimi and Rytlock are Race-stereotypes to a certainextend.
  21. Yes, you did say that this is the argument against such an implementation. Thats the whole reason we even have this discussion. The same argument that I made several times now, wich you fail to aknowledge. Also, how is that even an argument? You basicyll say "I never said there NEEDS to be a reason for this to be added... except there needs to be a reason for this to be added, else it would make no sense."
  22. It has, if it's the same in-universe explanation. Because it doesn't matter if it's to players or a player and a NPC are fighting: Both are fictional characters in a fictional world.
  23. Funny, when I explored the map several times, I had plenty of NPC's to fight in order to get hero points for map completion. You asked for a story reason for this to exist. I explained (several times now), how a reason for this already exists ingame.
  24. Yes. Actually several. As evident in the history of your posts. You still mix it up. It's not real training, it just an excuse to have players fight each other. Just like it`s and excuse to have players fight hero-point npc's that are members of the pact. And if Anet says: "Hey, we give you this feature and story wise it's... uhm... Pact members fighting each other as sparring?", then it's a perfectly fine reason. Not good, but acceptable. Still better than the kitten they gave us about waypoints. Sometimes ingame mechanics are just that: Mechanics. They don't always need explanat
  25. Thats true. But you asked for it. You are putting the carriage before the horse here. If you point out the lack of a story reason for players to fight each other 1v1 in the OW and then, when provided with a possible reason start to argue that it`s not viable because it's not implemented right now, then you invalidate you question for a reason in the first place. Once again, you mistake "ingame lore reason" and "refining the mechanical skills of players". Those are two very different things. See above. Teaching players mechanical skills and giving a reason for why s
×
×
  • Create New...