Imba.9451

Like I said: I am neither riled up about this, nor in a furious frenzy to disagree on Anets decision, like you make me seem to be. I just would like to know more details, especially considering how this effect ONLY got nerfed for the weapon-swapper, not for everyone else receiving the boons. I see this even as a good thing in WvW (wich would be a valid point against my argument, that you never made), but due to it's poor implementation, still works in WvW to quite an extend.

Building a 9-year story around plot devices does leave a lot to be desired though. And having plot-devices on both the antagonist AND protagonist sides instead of fleshed out characters who drive the plot by interaction gets tedious at some point. Thats why I hope for Dragons to go away, so we can get REAL antagonists and not just some life-ending cataclysmic threats.

Yes, I prefer to be critical. I mean, this whole affair does not rile me up or anything, I simply lean towards the "was this really neccessary?" side. Wich we have no information about. We do not even know if this does benefit everyone, or just people who pre-stack in a dungeon. Thats pure speculation on your part, on wich you build your argument. And, again: Please refrain from articulating your posts in such an provocative and condescending way, and just provide the arguments you want to make without uneccessary jabs. This would make interaction alot easier and does not endanger the conversation to get derailed.

Considering Arenanets implementaion of this, I actually do believe this, yes. I have explained how this is flawed. I also explained, that without elaboration on how this increase game performance, and in wich instances it increases game performance, I fail to see the neccessity here. Because if this performance increase only affects a very tiny fraction of the game, and only in instanced content, it probably doesn't matter at all, especcially if it was ONLY cause by weapon swapping and pre stacking . wich most people simply never do, as you stated yourself, thus not redurcing game performance in the first place. As long as no additional information is presented, I allow myself to put this decision into question, even though it does not affect me.

I really do not know why I keep arguing with you, considering your condescending undertone and provocations dripping from almost every post you write. But oh well, here we go again: We don't know what aspect exactly causes an improvement of the game performance. Also, the current interaction of stacking buffs that get reset on you, but not on others, seems even more unintended than how it was before. Also, the only place this was possibly used was in instances, in wich usually people are tied in battles and in wich not many players are present to begin with. So yes, unless I am shown how exactly this improves game performance for the general public, I am advocating for people who complain about these changes, even tho I am way too casual to ever engage in speedrunning tactics that make use of those mechanics.

And if Anet decides something else is unintended tomorrow? After such a long time, this change seems random and uncalled for. You know thats not the reason. Stop provoking.

They have all the reason to justify it, considering it did not interfere with any major fights, and was not adressed until now . especially with the poor implementation, since you can still give buffs to other people, you simply lose your own.

Engaging with other peple will ALWAYS involve the risk of gettung upset. You eitehr accept this risk or ask anet to turn of any player interaction completely. Including emotes. A game can't and should not be tailored around the special social needs of very few people, sorry to say that.

Thank you. Finally a voice of reason.

Yes, because thats what it is: An opinion. Base on something people wish for, but overblown by your imagination. And I hoped society moved away from "Oh, it happened on a few rare occasions, therefore it must be a problem deeply rooted in society itself!" One of the drawbacks of the internet: Everyone expressing his or her experiences leaves no real room to get a grasp on the real scope of things.

Then fight somewhere with not many mobs around? Also, you are again making assumptions about players requesting this. Hardly any argument against the feature, wich you are against anyway. Stop. Making. Up. Assumptions. You are strawmanning so hard, the international unions of crop-security is about to sue you for damaging the reputation of hard-working strawmen- and women around the world. Seriously though. Please stop making up things. Open world dueling is kinda casual, the way it is asked for so far. And if implemented that way, everyone know what they are getting into. Stop making up problems for a mode you do not even want that won't even concern you. Complaints you made up entirely.

No, you would right click them and select "request duel". And get a message that the player does not accept duels if selected so under options. To be fair, you make yourself an easy target with such requests that are tailored especially to your demands. Does not justify the trolling, but again, action = reaction. Yet you make it out to be worse than it actually is for normal behaving players. For you maybe. Not for me. And probably not for many others. We simply click block if the person doesn't get it and then we are done with it. For some people, yes. Not for me, because, like I said, I do not acre about 1v1. But most of your arguments are simpy nothing more than "I don't want this!". Honsetly, that only increases my interest in this feature. Kinda like dark souls invasions. I see myself participating in this 🙂 Or do duels far away from mobs. Or accept mobs as an additional threat. Since I suck at 1v1, luring someone into a pocket raptor spawn and stunning him seems like alot of fun to me.

Thats a very heuristic way of looking at this. And well, maybe it will happen. rarely. I fail to see the apocalyptic picture of spammageddon you try to paint coming to reality though.

Well, I consider designing new maps more difficult than "simply" enabling open world PvP. But since I am not a programmer either, this could be completely wrong, thus I have to concede my argument here. That depends on many, many more factors. For example the wilingness of the community to engage in PvP. How much is it "socially acceptable" to do duels? How much recognition is tied to engaging in duels? Considering the possibility to do duesl in private arenas, "c'mon, duel me bro!" could be said now as it could with open world duel requests, because it will always relae to the options available. More available options will not agically increase the amount of people whispering to to engage in a duel.

Well, for us it is. I actually agree on the cities part. Thats much less reasonable than allowing Dueling in the open world. GW2 is not the first game I played, yet I have never encountered the this problem to the extend you describe it. Uhm, no, because you provided no argument for this.

Are you currently spammed with requests to duel 1v1 in the arenas? Probably not. I see no reason for this to happen if open-world-pvp-duel-request were to be implemented in the game. There is no data to support this claim, except a few people who claim to have experienced this in other games.

I highly doubt that to be the reason. If anything, that should be the reason to driven prices even further down, to have even the last player buy them.

While I agree, the story was hidden to most players, the teased events were interesting. But raid stories are a whole nother ebast to tackle. I myself only read them up back them, because I never did raids until recently. That was never my intention. I usually put into words what I mean, and if I don't, I do not have anything particular in mind. I don't know if the word is used differently in english, but in german it is used when someone make an undifferentiated claim, tries to downplay a complex situation into one simple factor or creates strawmen. I do not consider a sendoff as a mistake by itself. Just a rushed sendoff to close loose threads. Also, her legendary weapons might hold more meaning if she dies. Same for the statue. Well, she COULD have intervened the moment we found out that Bangar wanted to bring Jormag into the equation. But she didn't. Despite everyone knowing that Bangars plan probably wasn't very smart and would endanger pretty much everyone. Generally, Jormags whole theme of manipulation was handled rather poorly and resulted in nothing anyway. Another wasted opportunity. I disagree here, because sidelining her means she is still there for potentially re-draftig her into the story when it's convenient. But aside from that, this is exactly my point: I want relatable villains, not eldritch abominations that end reality. Or at least not always. Sometimes it makes sense, if the game is set up for it, like Bloodborne. But not as a simple 1-up. My favorite thing still would be the EoD antagonist to be the equivalent of our commander - a person who just became kitten due to the stuff he or she has done. I guess less Aurene is something and better than nothing, no matter how exactly this comes to be. Because as a plotdevive, she destroys tension, and as a character, she is basically Jesus.

Well, if you preordered the special EoD collection they already have your money anyway. I think this is the worst anniversary sale I have seen in GW2. I saved up gems for almost 9 months, just for this. I have no idea why they are so stingy NOW all of a sudden. Shouldn't they celebrate and give people an invcentive to give them money, with EoD around the corner? Or do they try to have you spend your 4000 poorly?

Why? It does not matter if there are 100 or only 1 summor classes. The ability to afk farm stays the same.

But it's still there. And some people cared. The amount of people caring does not define wether it`s good or bad. With single aspect of a story, I mean Aurene here, Aurene there. Unless a character is really likeable, this gets tedious. And even if a character is likeable, being exposed to this character for a long amount of time will eventually wear interest down. Villain or not, a setup ending in an unsatisfying conclusion does feel... well, unsatisfactory. kitten happens, np. Thats the problem though, the balance and magic is a very soft magic system. Wich is not inherently bad, but need to be handled carefully to not throw in some Deus Ex Machina and say "A wizard did it!". I am not saying that it can't be handled well. It surely could. I simply do not trust ANet on this regard. But I never suggested Aurene going crazy, or did I? Hence I wasn't doing polemics there. For the moment, yes. I agree on this. But a solution has to be found, and basically having an all-mighty elder dragon who you just need to call does not help to create any tension with whatever threat comes after the ED's. I would disagree, I felt like her holding back was incredibly forced. But this may also be because of how poorly IBS was handled. I did, and I explained already: I think her behaviour felt forced. It was clear, that Jormag wasn't up to any good. Her hesitation actually conflicts the character that was established up to that point. True, but it's still the brute force method: Killing them. Like I said, maybe it's because of how poorly IBS was executed, but I feel like, while it does make sense how you described it, the game did a bad job to convey this in an engaging way. That would downplay the player character however, just for the sake of keeping cohesion for aurene somehow intact. Wich is a direction I do not want the game to be going. Aurene is young and should not be handed the mentor-status this easily. Personal hardships for certain characters can make for decent stories, but a real "threat" can not be established without getting Aurene out of the way. Well, maybe a civil war, as Aurene would not want to take sides, but nothing that the races of Tyria would have to face together, unless it is something much more powerful than aurene, further establishing story-powercreep. I am fine with a very serious threat that is objectively less powerfull than elder dragons, but in order for it to create stakes and tension, there must not be any ways to easily deal with them. (Skritt-Mega-Hivemind, a man can dream.)

Well I, and clearly others, have differing experiences then. Who is to decide who is right now? And why would anyone randomly choose one of many other random persons to spam? This literally never happened to me before in my 32 years of life - only with people I actually interacted with in some way or another. And I am not exactly a casual player. I am sorry if you were unlucky enough to have differing experiences, I I fail to see how this is supposed to be the norm.

You forget raids. But additionally, having too much of a single aspect of a story will get tedious as well - especially if it results in an all-powerfull being. Joko is a major character in the lore of the game, wether you like it or not. He was around ALOT longer than aurene, did more things than Aurene, had more impact on the world than aurene, hence: It really isn't. I fail to see how. Care to elaborate? That does not mean Aurene has to be alive in the end for this balance to happen. Thats your interpretation of it. Based on your wishes maybe. But your or my wishes do not mean anything. What matters is good writing and coherence. And that can be achieved in multible ways. You liking Aurene does not contribute to this in the slightest. I am no fan of the Aurene going crazy idea either, dor the exact points you made. It would not fit the narrative setup. Her getting killed by other reasons however, or her sacrificing herself for the balance (wich is poorly explained and basically the equivalent to a mcguffin at this point) is a whole nother story. Also, GW2 havin ""it's best years ahead of it" is no reason for Aurene to live. Better having a strong sendoff to a character than having her ability to basically end every conflict in existance that is hold back by her unwillingness to interfere overshadow ANY resemblance of tension. I never said anything in particular about my ideal ending, as far as I remember. In fact, we seem to be able to reach some common ground as it turns out. Yes, and you put words in my mouth for how this plays out. Aurene living is a detriment to GW2's story, hence she needs to die. That this needs to happen in a cohesive way is self-explanatory. You wouldn't assume me suggesting a pink unicorn appearing out of nowehere to stab her to death either. I hope. No. Aurene is too powerful. That alone is enough to have her die ion order to feel any tension again, without 1-upping the stakes. Also, she is a bad character and combines many tropes. But it has to, if Aurene stays alive. Yes, and the only reason they were allowed to do so is because of Aurene sitting on her kitten and doing nothing for a long time. Because the writers knew, she is too freaking powerful. Does it? A scheming dragon that certainly is up to no good with aurene sitting around is the epitomy of the "This is fine" meme. Well, the solution wasn't that far away from that. We smacked the dragons with friendship-beams while Aurene ganked their healing supply. And those reason seem forced. Anet wants bothe: They want to have a character that is caring and supportive and that everyone loves without her earning it by doing something. Because if she did anything, nothing could stop her. Thus the writers need to come up with shallow reason for her sitting on her kitten. Aurene is the worst character of GW2 with ease.

I play Dota, and even there the stuff happening isn't even half as bad as you guys make it out to be. Sure, there is the toxic guy who sometimes goes "1v1 me kitten", but even that is rare. Stop making it out to be like the end of the world. It wouldn't be. The general sentiment of "I don't want people being able to do things I don't want" is highly egocentric.

You forget GW1. Taking that into account, the argument is much less flawed than you try to make it. That's just polemic. People simply point out the flaws in Aurene. Also, killing off a character doesn't equal "Throwing buildup away". Thats something you got very, very wrong about storytelling. Sometimes death IS the payoff for buildup, because it is either the natural conclusion (Eddard, Song of Ice and Fire) or a way to kickstart a chain of events for another story to be told. Simply 1-upping the threat like in DBZ, in order to always have something stronger to fight will cause dissonance with the player.