kharmin.7683

Is this not already possible with LFG?

Ctrl+Shift+H hides all of the on-screen stuff. Then, F6 to take the photo. Ctrl+Shift+H again brings the on-screen stuff back.

Does taking a character name delete that character? If so, then what about those players who have been away and then return to find their character missing? And the loss of birthday presents or whatever else might have been on that character or in inventory?

I wonder if it is a limitation in the database that makes it more practical to only have one set of key binds be account bound rather than per character?

If they couldn't be bothered to login after being notified that they would lose their name due to inactivity, they didn't care in the first place. The primary reason to release inactive names isn't to free them, it's to encourage those who still cared to come back, who would have otherwise likely never returned. Who are we to make that determination? That's Anet's purview and it seems that they are content with the status quo.

Some money from paid name changes? Happier players because they finally got the name that's being camped since release and never touched since?And kittened off players who lose their name?That's a weird question tho since ANet releases plenty of stuff that doesn't "benefit" them. Like offering living story episodes for free whenever they launch or later on down the line, when they could be making money off them instead.We don't know that giving LS free doesn't benefit them. I'd argue that it does; else they wouldn't do it.

With the ages-old question: what's in it for them?

Add them to your friendslist. They never log on, ever. In years.But they could, one day, log in. And then, on that day, find out that their name has been stripped. GW2 is not founded on this practice.

I'm a very casual player, so I don't really enjoy what feels grindy to me to have to complete every map. I did it once; that was enough for me.

To be fair, how much competition did WoW have back then compared to now?

I think that some people who are opposed to solo content feel that GW2 is designed to be an MMO and that they would not like to see resources spent in creating content that is not multi-player centric?

Who says that "this is not GW2"? We already have a bunch of solo content, mainly the main story. We also have, as I mentioned in my first post, things like Queen's Gauntlet and SAB which are both designed with solo gameplay in mind (Queen's Gauntlet being only solo'able). Solo content exists in GW2, yet solo content is "not GW2"?My point was that my understanding was that GW2 was not designed to be so heavily invested in solo content, because it is a MMO. Yes, there is content that can be solo run, as you've clearly shown, but such content is not the norm. Personal story is a way to progress into the MMO areas of the map. I don't believe that it was intended to be replayable for being solo content otherwise the game would be marketed as such.

No need to feed the FUD with inaccuracies. It wasn't half of the staff.

Skimmer is a fail, gaining 3 cm of altitude is useless, ok it floats so then? What should have been its ability is diving underwater, and boost yourself underwater, but instead they added "swim infuz" -_-Well, I think to be fair, the skimmer was introduced with PoF maps in mind, in which there really isn't much underwater content. It was designed to be used for crossing terrain that would otherwise be harmful (quicksand, sulfur, branded area) in those maps. There wasn't really any need to make it work underwater. In this sense, I don't think it right to call it a failure. Yeah I use it to take the time, but it's a kind of feeling of liberty, riding with your horse it's not the same as riding a manta ray. It would be for players wanting to move rapidly, without having to swap to bunny/raptor to jump over a 2 meters edges or a precipice.No, it's not the same I grant you that. Still, if the argument for the need for a mount for simply exploring maps at a leisurely pace, then it would suffice to use the skimmer without Anet needing to spend resources to create something else. Most of the arguments for a horse mount, on both sides, have been made before so I'm not going to continue with this superfluous thread.