kasoki.5180

Can you present some arguments behind such toxic opinions?

Yeah, it changes nothing for BS warriors. Its still gonna be super used and super strong. Flat increase to attributes of 200 is not something you pass on. Not to mention how it can kickstart your swiftness for Warrior's Sprint You also probably missed the part where battle standard now deals dps and kills downed enemies. Expect to see battle standard at every node in PvP in the future

Honestly, I am more interested into what pants are those? But thumbs up for blood effect, I guess that's also cool if you're into that kind of stuff

Charrs have magic the same way humans have technology. They are not magic oriented culture nor is there any indication that they posses significant magical prowess. Only significant magical feat they ever did was Searing Cauldron and that was gift from the titans.

There is nothing in the game that would indicate that humans are not developing technology because they don't want charr to see them as a threat. Don't forget that humans are magic oriented race, much more than charr who are more oriented towards technology. Humans have far less need to develop large machinery since they have culturally different approach to magic. People often forget that in fantasy worlds magic has similar usage and role as technology has in real world. But to be fair, game is really pushing the narrative that every invention in the game is either Asuran or Charr to the point where you ask yourself what was human contribution to airships

First of all I just wanna say that you should definitely read my posts at least a few times since this is already XYZ time that you are completely misinterpreting me, misquoting me or accusing me of having opinions I have never presented. You are a priori against any form of change, no matter how small it may be and are automatically grouping the mildest of change into same category as the most extreme change. And yes, "how much" is the most important aspect of these entire issue and it is consequential. You simply proclaiming it isn't doesn't make it so. Reason why it is consequential is because it creates a ratio of people who enjoy it vs those who don't enjoy it or those who are neutral. Just because there will always be number of people that dislike it means little if there is larger number of people that like it and game is overall better off. How excessive certain policy is is directly consequential to its success and acceptance in population. And pretending that small number of people liking/disliking something is the same as if large number of people like/dislike it is just dishonest. Also, for third time now. It DOES NOT need to be in form of new gear. Stop ignoring this part. Thats great, because I have never said that you HAVE to do anything. As a matter of fact I have explicitly stated that its completely optional. Argument about gear depriciation and re-gearing in X months have literally nothing to do with anything that I am saying. I have never said that you would have to get new gear. As a matter of fact, I keep saying that it doesn't have to be gear. Also, stop being dishonest. This idea that you would somehow be forced into constant grind every few months is true only if they introduce very heavy gear vertical progression with new raids that correspond to new gear. Which I have never advocated for. You keep presenting my opinions as I am advocating for a WoW style progression where every few months you get a new raid with new tier of gear. Even though I have gone out of my way to say that I dont think vertical progression needs to be done that way. Not to mention how the argument is weird since people who don't have legenderies have to re-gear when the new meta comes out or they wish to play different spec, sometimes completely. Re-gearing is for vast number of people completely normal thing in this game. And for like fourth time. It doesn't need to be gear progression 10/10 Ad hominem. I have at no point displayed lack of understanding for those that don't wish to see change. Presenting my own opinions and arguments =/= refusal to acknowledge existence of other side. Just because i refuse to conform to your viewpoint doesn't mean I refuse to accept there are players who prefer things otherwise. or that I am uncapable of coming to terms that there are players who think that way. But most importantly, this was never an issue so I honestly don't understand why is that important. In all honesty, I think you should re-read that very same passage you wrote.

I have never said that someones desire or opinions about the game are more valid than others. I have said that your presentation of "Player A" is not completely true. @Cyninja.2954 said: Vertical progression or horizontal progression are polar opposites if implemented in the way most people are referring to them. Not what I am talking about. I am saying that people are talking about idea of vertical progression in its extremes. Horizontal progression has nothing to do with it. Not sure what you are trying to say or how is it related to my statement These are literally the first players i have mentioned. If you are already doing end game PvE you have nothing to loose if raid boss drops you a new item for example. Raid boss that you are already doing anyway. Willingness to re-gear has nothing to do with it since it is content that you are doing anyway. If you dislike the new feature dont useit. It's not hindering you to do the content or anything. I have also explicitly stated that it doesn't need to be excessive gearing nor that it has to be gearing at all. These statements make me 100% percent that we are not talking about same thing at all.

Thats a slight assumption. For example, me and most of my RL friends played GW1 and bought Gw2 either at launch or very close to launch. And lack of holy trinity and pve grind was never on our list of reasons for buying or playing the game. But it was reason for most of them to quit and for me to periodically quit and return to the game. I am willing to bet that there is way more players that would be motivated by some kind of vertical progression than many are willing to admit here. Also, ascended gear and fractals are an example of post launch vertical progression. No matter what is the reasoning behind them. Exotics, dungeons or whatever else do not change the nature of what ascended gear is and how it functions within the game. Motivation behind its introduction has nothing to do with what "it" is and how it functions in the game. I would like to point out that using vertical progression as a general term makes this discussion seem like a discussion about polar opposites and extremes. It seems to me that community here on the forums very often speaks in complete opposites and extremes which leaves no room for compromise and thus quality feedback/suggestions to the developers.Just because someone is in favour of some form of vertical progression it doesn't mean that they are automatically advocating for extremely eccessive WoW type gear grind of vertical progression. As a matter of fact, it doesnt even have to be new "tier" of gear type, nor does it have to be something related to attributes. There are countless ways to customize and optimize your character in a MMO besides just grinding for that 7% increase to basic attributes. Also, additional leveling up doesn't need to be necessarily introduced for additional optimization to be introduced. People who are already doing content where vertical progression would play a role wouldn't really even notice it as they would simply get it from the content that they are doing anyway.People who are not motivated to do the end game content might become motivated to do so, resulting in the overall fuller end game community.People who are neither interested in the content or the progression would not feel a single change to their playstyle as it is completely facultative.Its a win-win-win situation. Why be against even considering this?

It seems some of you are confusing militaristic society with successful military history. Just because some state/kingdom/empire achieved XYZ military victory it doesn't mean that its a militaristic society. Quoting examples from historical empires makes little sense since some of those collapsed before they even consolidated their rule over their territory and are thus hardly an example of a "working" system. Others weren't really that militaristic as many people think them to be. Also on a side note, there is something called political science. Within it there is a subdiscipline called "state building". We actually know what kinds of societal/governmental organisations yield what kind of result and what kind of variables are needed to go against the trend. Spoiler alert, militaristic societies are not at the top of the list. On topic of Charr vs. Human. In some hypothetical conflict between the two its hard to tell. There are way to many variables that we do not know of. Number of population, economic strenght, internal integrity and consolidation. Infrastructure and technology. Usage of magic and magical weaponry. Shadow diplomacy. All of these can severely influence the outcome of war. Second, there is a question of how and why the war was started. This plays a huge part in how other races position themselves and which side they'll pick. Not to mention that it can also influence internal situation of warring states. This can cause high levels of integration and unity and strong motivation. But if the reason is "wrong" it can result in low support for war effort and in more extreme versions even in internal conflicts. Also, this "how and why" can also determine how other global actors position themselves. This can result in countless actions, for example military help, humanitarian aid, sanctions against the aggressing party or even something more punishing. Every race has interest in maintaining peace and cooperation in central Tyria. Game goes really out of the way to show you how commerce oriented nations in the game are, with Lions Arch being in the center of it. No race has interest in further chaos and instability of war. There is also a question of Lions Arch, an "immigrant nation" that's melting pot of cultures and races. Considering that LA is geographically at the center of the region and that its strong economic player that is also mostly human dominated it is very likely that LA would join the war the very same day it starts. But on the otherside, since its an "immigrant" nation it is also quite possible that it wouldn't join the war in order to keep internal integrity and stability. So it comes down to who is in power and what are their political priorities. Currently, I would argue that LA would get involved. Third. We know very little of Charr outside Ascalon. Our knowledge of other legions is shaky at best. And that's a huge unknown. Integrity within each legion, inter-legion integrity and consolidation are extremely important. Not to mention individual capabilities of their executive ranks. Effective supply chain among legions and territorial compact they already have can largely go in their favour. We don't really know how well their infrastructure is connected. On the one side you could get a smooth supply chain of resources, tech and manpower. But on the other side you could get an outdate system that missmatches resources and creates gross delays in allocation.For comparison sake, Kryta has Elona which was recently wrecked by Balthazar and Kralk. Unless Cantha somehow magically pops out,it doesn't bode well for humans in this particular category. Fourth. In Guild Wars 2 there is an independant military order called the Pact. Even though its quite wrecked since Mordy, its still a respectable force, but more importantly they carry a lot of social and political capital. Unless they split in two, simply having the support of the Pact can help a warring state.Also, the Pact has Order of Whispers within it, and they have shown to have no problem with getting their hands dirty when it comes to politics and kingmaking. TLDR; There are way to many unknowns, but in my opinion its most likely that the side which starts the war is gonna be on the loosing side. If its the Charr it might last longer because of territorial chession between the Legions. On the other hand, if Charr do start it, many withing Iron Legion might be against it, thus severely hindering integrity of Legions and overall war effort.

I would argue that visual noise is partially part of the problem. Sometimes I cant even see what or when I'm supposed to dodge/move because of all the effects going into my face

This. The writing is objectively poor, but what makes it worse is that EVERY time there is a scene where the commander should be speaking with some amazing/powerful emotion, it is ALWAYS delivered in the most bland, energy-less way I could imagine. It is like the actress really wants to transmit her acting skills into the dialogue, but when she does, the director stops her and says "Read it again, with less character, emotion and strength." I think this may actually be the case. Even though the writing is generally bad, there are still instances where the voice could have really lifted up situation. It is almost as if the female voice actress is not allowed to actually act because anet is afraid of injecting true emotion/conflict into the game. Take a risk Anet, you need it desperately. My experience was completely different. What you said I would agree with when it comes to male human voice, but when it comes to female I think its quite opposite.I think that certain emotional moments are far better delivered by human female VA and I feel there is a certain sense of "burden" within the voice much more then i do for Nolan North. Don't get me wrong, I love his work as human VA, especially when it comes to more cocky and casual talk, but i feel like some more "heavy" moments are better delivered by female VA.

Wars are far more complex than just racial/ethnic/religious tensions. Actually, most of these tensions actually have roots in something completely unrelated to race/ethnicity/religion etc. Conflicts usually have multiple dimensions and causes, and reducing them to so called clash of civilizations/races/religions is often oversimplifications since it ignores deeper reasons like geopolitics, personal characteristics of state leaders, economic reasons, international community, internal politics of the warring states etc etc. Not saying that these "identity" aspects of the conflicts are non-existent or unimportant, but they are far from being most important or sole reasons behind conflicts. Racial tensions don't disappear when people work together, they disappear when people get new perspectives, establish new ideals and values or apply them in situations where they previously had not. Which I would argue did happen with many of the Charr and Humans. But whats most important is did their leaders get a new perspective. Again, I would say yes. With only notable exception being Blood legion Imperator. Third is the question of "international community". Even though there isn't really any type of institutionally organized international community its safe to say that rest of Tyria would be greatly hostile to the idea of Charr invasion. Current situation has brought peace and cooperation to the region. That means development, economic stability, growth and prosperity. Half of the open world tasks/quests are related to entrepreneurs, economy and trade. Game makes and obvious effort to show you how races are intertwined, with Lion's Arch being in the middle of it. This is why issue of Charr invasion is not just question of how "naturally" inclined a certain race is or isn't towards war. They would all be affected by mass destruction of Kryta or Ascalon. All of Charr suddenly going to war with Humans would be a very bad 180 turn. Not because humans and charr worked together and shed blood together for the last few years. But because it would show how recent events played no part in shaping the collective consciousness of at least Iron Legion charr. And that would be extremely bad writing IMO. In my opinion I believe that game is going to take is into Charr centered expansion/content. But I think it will be blood vs Others, not Charr vs Humans.

This is completely on you. There are many people who like the voice of human female character. Not to mention how some of us never perceived it the way you just presented it.

PUG PvE community is very unwelcoming to new/inexperienced players. Its not just raids, its also present in fractals. Best advice is to start your own LFG or join a LFG that in its description is inviting to new people. No worry, things are way better in Guilds or groups of people that usually play together. Also, if you are in EU, you might wanna check this outhttps://rti.enjin.com/

I dont understand this dogma that ranged weapons cannot be stronger than melee weapons. Especially in a game that has skill splitting for different game modes and on top of that is very oriented towards forcing people into short range stacking due to boon sharing and aoe nature of heals What would be the downside if Longbow had same dps output as greatsword in PvE only? It would actually give us some much needed refreshment in my opinion Higher melee damage is the reward for putting yourself in more direct danger than you would be at range. The underlying logic here applies even in PvE as melee combat is still putting you in more direct harm's way. Yes, I understand why in standard combat design melee is designed to be stronger. My point was that this does not apply in the game like GW2 because of the way boss encounters and class roles are designed.In this games PvE you are in the short range of the boss, no matter what weapon you play. Thats because the nature of boonsharing and healing. Also, I'm not sure that melee range in this game PvE is more punishing considering AoE and range of Boss mechanics and skills. Bosses are based on periodic strong attacks or AoE spamms, not on constant attacks in the melee. Not to mention how melee range actually guarantees you more defensive boons from other players unlike if you would, lets say, stand in the back of the boss fight. Also, this idea that melee is more dangerous applies in the game where bosses and encounters are mostly based on melee type enemies. But in this game, there are countless ranged enemies.Safety of ranged weapons simply doesn't apply in this games PvE the way it does in others. On top of that, some guardians melee weapons are actually melee/ranged hybrids. For example, Sword #3 and GS#5 are ranged dps skills.

I dont understand this dogma that ranged weapons cannot be stronger than melee weapons. Especially in a game that has skill splitting for different game modes and on top of that is very oriented towards forcing people into short range stacking due to boon sharing and aoe nature of heals What would be the downside if Longbow had same dps output as greatsword in PvE only? It would actually give us some much needed refreshment in my opinion

Its a filtering system against new players. Personally I don't want someone who just finished leveling their story suddenly going into T4. Sure, its not a perfect filtering system but its better than nothing. Without AR all LFG for fractals would ask for some kind of killproof or AP ranking. Gear check? Exotic and ascended only have a 3% difference, that is so minor. This times five players in the party. Also i have had situations where I survived with 100HP and party suceeded in killing the boss. As stupid as it sounds but small difference in vitality can be what saves your healer or support class in dangerous situations. Also, in a game with so much emphasis on active defense agony is a refreshing aspect since you can't cleanse it or block it the same way you can other attacks.Personally, i think that agony resistance is one of the best things in terms of general PvE

But the term treaty of ebonhawke was always used for ceasefire agreement. I don't really see which part of the dialogue suggests its the peace treaty. But yeah, in all honestly, we can most likely assume that Treaty was signed somewhere in the last 6 years as it is getting ridiculous by this point now

Going a bit offtopic here. But I have a question that bothered me always. I have played GW1 only a little so never really experienced story of Charr invasion. My question is, why was Ascalon given to Iron Legion? Is this ever explained? If i understood correctly, back when humans took Ascalon, Charr were ruled by Khan- Ur, and only later fragmented into High Legions. This means that Ascalon cant be really taken as "historic" Iron Legion territory. Also, since Capital of Iron Legion was erected only after Ascalon fell, do we know status of Iron Legion in land of other Charr? Like is there some historic iron Legion capital city outside of present Ascalon?

Ehmm.... Genocide is definitely not morally grey. And is absolutely not legitimized because somebody "stole" "your" land 1000 years ago. Humans held Ascalon for far longer than Charr ever did and left much greater impact upon it. Just because you have "obsession" with certain territory and consider it rightfully "yours" that doesn't mean that any tactics or strategy is acceptable. Especially since that is the land Charr took from others and only held it for like 1/10 of its history. From a realistic standpoint, what Charr did was mass war crime and would be considered ultimate cassus belli in modern world. There is absolutely no way to legitimize it

Note, any explanation for waypoints needs to take into account existance of asura gates. So the purpose and/or use of the two can't be the same or such that renders other obsolete

10k damage over 39 attacks is nothing that needs to be nerfed