gateless gate.8406

So, aside from the fact that you only tried to negate one of my points (I'm guessing you can't do so with the others), how do you "easily" evaluate that? Remember, it needs to be quick and easy. You need to be able to see the builds (and gameplay skill) of the majority of the random LFG group you joined (to keep the situation comparable to other metas/gold farms). You also need to be able to foresee whether you will disconnect mid-way through your lengthy time investment, or get a map closure. Please, let me know.

Let me also add that the possibility of disconnecting during the DE meta (and not being able to rejoin your map) as well as the special case of getting a "this map is closing in 59 minutes" notice and literally having a full, participating map shut down on you are additional "risks." It is possible to disconnect during other metas, but again, it simply doesn't hurt as much because the time investment is much lower. The second case (of getting your map instance shut down) is a special vulnerability in DE because of its excessive length.

Did I say that? No reason to invent unrelated hypotheticals and try to attribute them to people who didn't say them. My point, since you missed it, is that DE is simply too risky of a time investment -- IF your goal is to earn gold (if you have some other reason for doing DE, more power to you). You can read on for elaboration. Since you're having difficulty understanding a pretty simply sentence, let me clarify further: It is gambling with your time (to an excessive level) because it takes more time than other metas, and has a higher chance of failure. There are other metas with non-zero chance of failure -- eg, Chak Gerent if you get into a late map with few people/commanders -- but if you fail, you have only lost a few minutes (let's say 15 minutes at the worst). That's an acceptable gamble, in my opinion. Indeed, you can often quickly evaluate whether you got into a "bad map" and go do something else so you don't waste time. DE is not quite the same; you will heavily rely on the skill/builds of 50 random people, and you won't know whether those 50 people will perform adequately until near the very end of that 1-2 hour time investment.

When Anet says the DE meta succeeds at the rate of the other common metas, I agree with OP that they're likely looking at the data wrong (probably because they subconsciously don't want to admit their big beautiful creation kinda sucks). As it stands, there's simply no rational reason to do DE unless you like to gamble with your time.

Sure to be the next FortNite-level hit. Re-releasing a 10-year old MMO as a single player game. A genius use of resources.

Bug report: The "Mech Core: J-Drive" grandmaster trait for Mechanist states that "signet skills gain improved passive effects and continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging." This functions some/most of the time. However, in PvP, if you die while a signet is on cooldown, you will respawn without the effect of that signet until it comes off cooldown.

Anet does not run the wiki.

Bump. Fix game please.

This screed is not really worth replying to as you're operating within your own vision of what competitive PvP should be, rather than what it is (ie, you believe solo pvp is "unintended" - by who? certainly not Anet, as the option is supported). Solo queues exist in many competitive, group-based games for very well understood reasons. Arguing from a false frame of reference is a waste of time; better to just engage with reality. Again, the best option is to simply separate solo and group queues, so that people who like to duo (purely for the fun, of course; the increased winrate is purely ancillary) can do that without impacting soloers. This keeps both camps happy.

The ol' "rating difference when grouping" doesn't really work when matchmaking and ratings are completely busted. Desocializing is a negative, yes, but what are the costs that grouping/socializing bring? Unfairness and reduced match quality for anyone not grouped. That must be reckoned with. A solution for this is to simply create a solo queue option (or separate group and solo matchmaking behind the scenes, so that solo players never face groups). I and many others will readily sacrifice a few minutes of queue time to not have to deal with coordinated groups stomping us. Yes, I got into that stomp match quicker, but it was a terrible experience, so what's the point?

As long as groups are only matched with groups, I have no problem with it. As it stands, playing as a group (with all the increased coordination that entails) against ungrouped players isn't fair. Modern game companies frequently fall into the trap of supporting group queuing without reckoning with the negatives that come with it for everyone NOT grouping. If you want to pvp in a large coordinated group, unranked and tournaments are waiting for you.

Ah thanks for linking that video, will check it out.

Hi people, I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with a low-intensity Willbender build? For reference, this is something like auto-attacks + a few other key damage skills. Anyone done any DPS tests?

Haha, thank you for sharing that. The average person's grasp of basic economics is sometimes quite stunning.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/04/22/imf_director_maybe_we_printed_too_much_money_without_thinking_of_the_unintended_consequences.html

So you want to respond to gold inflation... with more gold inflation? Incidentally, you may want to apply for a job in the U.S. government.

The fact that the cooldown doesn't tick down while logged out pretty much kills this item, especially at its current price.

It's very, very hard to improve without criticism. Also, it is more of an internal thing than external; Anet can get all the constructive, calm, rational criticism in the world, but if they can't internally engage with that criticism without becoming overly defensive, then nothing changes (and in fact things may change for the worse as the injured creator doubles down on the pain points). At the same time, of course we must allow for differences in vision. The game is still great, but only Anet decides if the game gets better. Many things have improved lately so personally I do have faith.

So, given that I and others in this thread said Steam purchases support both (not support the same as pre-Steam; simply support) let's lay out your apparent logic when you say "Not if the account in question was only supporting ArenaNet alone, before": If you have a previously non-Steam GW2 account that you then (hypothetically, as it can't be done) transfer to Steam, the 70-80% financial support to Anet is -- through a mysterious transmutation -- either A) no longer money or B) being intercepted by a mysterious force before it arrives in Anet's accounts. I think it's obvious that you're not willing to use language honestly and aren't interested in having a good faith discussion, instead wanting to have an Internet Argument™. I'll leave you to it, and won't respond to you further.

Let me dispel the apparent confusion: When Valve and Anet both receive percentages of a purchase, both are receiving monetary support.

Among all the problems/things that are "ruining the game," this is very low priority. Hyperbole is for kids.

There's definitely a direct, obvious answer to that question, but you should know that playing/purchasing via Steam supports both.

"since you dont lose it it is not a boss" - that's not how emboldened works. You only lose emboldened stacks when encounters are cleared. "dont try to spin their intent" - I am not speaking to their intent, I am reporting a bug. The developers can do with the information what they will. If their intent is that all non-boss encounters never exceed 1 emboldened stack, that's fine, but you are not privy to that information. Simple as. Won't be responding in the future.

Read my post.

1. Don't try to speak for the developers and their intent. 2. Players have 1 stack of Emboldened during the event, disproving your point.