kharmin.7683

Difficulty is always going to be relative. Some players aren't physically able to be more efficient than others which has nothing to do with their build. Some players are simply "better" at these kinds of games than others and can do well in harder content with less META builds. There are many factors involved that relate to the level of difficulty for individual players. Builds matter, but aren't the only factor that should be addressed.

While I appreciate and understand your frustrations, nothing you have said here hasn't already been said in other threads.

I'd like to simply log in and get a legendary of my choice.

Capitals aren't instanced content and have resources there that all players can use. IMO, these are two entirely different things and the capitals should have more attention as they are used by more players. As we are often told, despite how many play GW2 in that way, the game is not a solo player game but an MMO. It makes sense to me to not dedicate resources to solo-centric things. Yeah, I don't know why these were ever a thing to begin with. And we can't know how much would be diverted -- perhaps a lot, maybe not so much. Still, I would prefer that resources be aimed more toward open content rather than instanced, solo content. This is also why I am against the implementation of player housing. But that's my preference.

Already requested here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/71324/skins-for-minionsPlease use the forums search feature.

When people criticize HoT they typically mention TD. When I see favorite maps list, AB and VB tend to come out a lot. I get that. It also depends on the definition for "viewed very highly". I think that the maps are very well done. I don't enjoy playing them. EDIT: It also depends on whom you ask. Your circle of players might share the same opinion as you as would mine (see: confirmation bias). In either case, I don't believe that you or I can say with certainty that "most" players view HoT maps highly. Or otherwise. If I say that PoF maps suck, can you proof this statement wrong? This is why I said I see AB and VB come out in the forums as favorite maps a lot. I did not say it is conclusive statistics, cuz even Anet do not have that. Or even my personal favorite maps. I am only debating the fact that you laid out. You said.... I don't believe that these maps are "viewed highly by most players" and was looking for your support for that statement. The forums in no way represent "most players". So, how can you justify that point? Actually, there was a lot of contention on the forums when HoT originally released. One could argue, using your point, that most players at that time were opposed to what was released.

I mean unless women want to wear a huge metal codpiece to show off their big... uh... I wont judge. Where can I find men's Tyrian armor that is as sexualized as women's Tyrian armor? Or are you arguing from a general statement while ignoring that the general condition doesn't map to Tyria's specific condition. You are right that women's and mens's armor would be sexualized or designed to exaggerate features, but we don't see any parity in Tyra. A large portion of female armor looks like a Broadway theatrical performance starring women's pelvises. Only a small portion of men's armor use access to flesh as a design pillar. Really? A large portion of female armor? What ratio? I don't see this evidenced in any of the heavy armor sets that I have. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole to make a point? What threshold would I have pass to qualify for "large portion"? There are a lot of butt capes as drawn stage curtains in light armor. Some in medium. If I look for "armor that uses access to flesh as a design pillar" I find obvious examples in heavy armor. Are you really going to argue that there is parity men's and women's armor?!?!? I play female characters and often equip them with sexualized skins. I understand and experience the attraction but I won't pretend parity exists. OP, forgive me if this seems like a high jacking. I won't continue. No, I was disagreeing with your statement that a "large portion of female armor looks like a Broadway theatrical performance starring women's pelvises." I just don't see the validity in that statement. That was all.

What? Nono, butt capes Awesome! I need a few more of those. Can't seem to get enough of 'em! /s

Pretty sure GW2 won't come to consoles because of the method by which their updates would have to be approved and such. There are several threads on that topic that can be found with the search function. Any "future proofing" would probably entail a massive undertaking. We've already been told how convoluted and cumbersome the existing code is. To future proof the game, they might need to start all over rather than try to fix the antiquated code. I wouldn't expect anything to really change in this aspect short of releasing GW3, which I don't see happening. /shrug

I mean unless women want to wear a huge metal codpiece to show off their big... uh... I wont judge. Where can I find men's Tyrian armor that is as sexualized as women's Tyrian armor? Or are you arguing from a general statement while ignoring that the general condition doesn't map to Tyria's specific condition. You are right that women's and mens's armor would be sexualized or designed to exaggerate features, but we don't see any parity in Tyra. A large portion of female armor looks like a Broadway theatrical performance starring women's pelvises. Only a small portion of men's armor use access to flesh as a design pillar.Really? A large portion of female armor? What ratio? I don't see this evidenced in any of the heavy armor sets that I have. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole to make a point?

Just because we haven't been given a plan doesn't mean that Anet doesn't have one.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/386/faq-about-using-the-forums

When people criticize HoT they typically mention TD. When I see favorite maps list, AB and VB tend to come out a lot. I get that. It also depends on the definition for "viewed very highly". I think that the maps are very well done. I don't enjoy playing them. EDIT: It also depends on whom you ask. Your circle of players might share the same opinion as you as would mine (see: confirmation bias). In either case, I don't believe that you or I can say with certainty that "most" players view HoT maps highly.

Not every player was looking for other players to improve tactics. Not being able to advance solo in HoT lost a lot of players. GW2 has long been an MMO where it is not required to play with other players. HoT, on release, broke that style and Anet suffered for it as many players left. PoF is proof that they had to change or risk losing more players. Pulling back on raids, too, is an indicator of this since raids were released with HoT and since haven't really been shown much support if any. Strike missions were the compromise, in my opinion, and even they seem to have lost their appeal. Anet knows better than anyone here what makes up the majority of their customer base and what generates the most revenue. I don't think "HoT on release" type of content is what their data supports.

Yes, I know. Why not put up LI requirements for all content then? How about world bosses? Yes, they are so hard that everyone on the map should have at least 150 LI or be gone. ;) I don't think it is fair to compare instanced content to open world content.

Don't make it harder then. But don't make it easier, because it makes no sense. For my money, the difficulty level of enemies in PoF is fine. It's the aggro radius that annoys me. If that is considered making things easier, then I will disagree with you. ;)

GW2 being so casual-centric it would make no sense to move to exclude those casuals from expansion content. They probably make a large majority of the player base. Making an expansion harder than PoF/HoT would, IMO, cut down on sales.

Not really fair to say "most" do not like grindy content. The forums are not a good representation of the entire player base. I would like to think that Anet knows how many players are engaged with which types of content so their metrics might well say that most players do enjoy the grind. Personally, I don't.

Yet another reason for less exploration?