Dashingsteel.3410

Why are people trying to turn this game into drag queen story hour?

Yeah, unfortunately jps have become more important as the game has aged. Lots of Nintendo game mechanics have also been added since HoT. Really not interested in Kangaroo simulator 2.

I am grateful for your advice, but I need no counseling, fortunately, I need my community back... You are calling people animals because they disagree with you about a video game! You said these people are nothing. Just a bit over the top.

I am wondering how long this thread will remain now that you have directly insulted other members of the community. The forum monitors always rush to protect certain groups in this community. I wonder if they will be consistent and take this thread down.

Op, please get counseling.

speak for urself pls. all of the few ppl still playing the game from back then i know speak highly of season 1. still by far the best season/experience to date in my opinion too, both story-wise and how they used their world to tell the story. imagine they would have continued in this way. maybe we wouldnt get an empty new map every few months no one plays in after every1 grinded his/her map-specific 100est currency. instead they would add content to existing maps, change them around, destroy things, build new ones etc. THAT eould have been the way to keep old maps relevant and interesting. regarding the complains about missing replayability: just turn old events/bossfights into fracs, simple as that. sure, u wont be able to play the whole story this way, but lets be honest: the lw-episodes we have now are mostly cohesive and dont require any knowledge of previous one anyways. just add some sort of hystorian-npc that gives u a recap of the rpevous ecvents u missed, maybe even with the cutscenes etc. and wed be good to go. the only real issue i ever had with season one were the technical difficulties. serious lag, dcs snd overall poor performance during large events. which didnt change much in 7 years, im looking at u wvw and bossrush... I am not discounting those who enjoyed it, but there is no doubt whatsoever that S1 was not well received at all in a more generalised sense. It had virtually no story, an over reliance on festivals, temporary content and a complete lack of direction. Even the devs were complaining about it - specifically the dungeon devs who saw their hard work stripped. Those who were here no matter how they feel about the Season will remember the backlash acutely. One acknowledged repeatedly by Anet themselves. In the 7 years, I have seen no other expac or season cause as strong a negative reaction as Season 1 did.Story alone in 18 months had less narrative than 2-3 episodes of a current Season. The quality of the story was even worse, with it barely showing any direction beyond super powered baddie being able to do things that made no sense. For all S2s perceived faults today, it was generally well regarded in how it explsined the story of S1 better than S1 ever attempted to. If they had continued down this route, GW2 prob would not exist today. I am not saying that arent important and great bits from S1 - the marjory investigation instance. marionette, revamped Teq, Battle for LA. The invasions are now templates for many side stories.But at the time and as a whole season, it was a mess and a disaster for the game that it took a long time to recover from. If you were there with us and enjoyed it, then great. I guess I must be in the minority because I had a very negative reaction to season 2 because it seemed extremely mundane compared to season 1. Season 2 also emphasized single player mode over massively multiplayer mode. In the seasons following season 1, there was nothing to draw players together. I've heard many players say that some of the fondest memories in the game came from the season 1 events I have never heard a player wax nostalgic about subsequent seasons.

Easy for you to say that when you get to experience it while some of us don't, the only way to see how those events play out are by watching youtube videos, I was confused as to why Lion's Arch looked different during PS instance. so what we got in subsequent seasons was story episode that was basically single player mode...… There wasn't anything to draw a bunch of players Marionette and battle for lion's arch made the story feel epic very unlike the next seasons

The special events are what made season 1 the greatest in my opinion. I wish Anet hadn't listened to the complaints of newer players and instead kept rolling out special events for subsequent seasons.

sinking ship

Stop confusing “femininity” with the gender of being Female.What makes a woman/man “feminine” is demeanor, not boobs. I disagree with you. Femininity is not only demeanor but is also associated with appearance. I can see a woman at a distance having never observed her demeanor and think she looks feminine. Some women are very feminine looking while other women are not feminine looking. Same thing with men some are very masculine looking while others are not.

GW2 has had skimpy armors from its launch. That is gw2. It has nothing to do with Conan the barbarian.

I remember the wise words of Sean, line editor of GURPS 4th Edition Characters, when I see such things... "You can't dodge a bullet because you can't see it coming." THis, of course, does not mean you can't anticipate the shooter and get out of the way. However, "mail and plate armour restricting movement" is a bit of a film trope. I am a materials scientist and a nerd. I have friends who make historically accurate weaponry, armour etc. - even better, using historically accurate methodology. It is significantly more work for lower quality but clears the "but this is modern steel" argument which is not really an accurate argument but good job I have nerdier friends who like hitting hot iron with a hammer for hours. You can dodge roll, wrestle, jump, pirouette, dance (until you can't - it IS tiring) in a well made mail and plate made to the specs. Cheers! Just remember we are comparing a chainmail bikini to full plate armor. This comparison would be females wearing the armor. The lightest full plate armor is around 42-45 pounds of armor. A woman wearing 45 pounds of armor would be much slower than a woman wearing a chain mail bikini. of course to deflate my own argument I could argue that mithril plate would be much much lighter : )

Nah. I'd rather not. I mean hell, I'm still annoyed at how ugly the female Phalanx armor looks compared to the male variant. And this is far better fashion wars anyway. Opinions. Also using and linking to resetera in any argument is an automatic loss lol How far does one take fantasy though? You can sit there and say "well, it's a game" but the fact remains that the game starts to break from reality in more ways than it already has. One thing to have dragons, Asura, etc. But when you have the female armor set that leaves a lot exposed you're just being more perverted than fantasy. Example, you take a male warrior and shoot an arrow at him. Realistically it would bounce off the armor. Do the same with a female character and all the archer would have to do is aim and the female warrior is either dead or badly injured. The only defense to this is that fighting/injuries are determined by stats and RNG mechanics. So you can sit there and say "well the armor's visual doesn't matter as long as the stats stay similar to the male counter part." You going into a fight with very sharp objects...why would you go into it exposed? And yet the setting calls limited coverage cloth, "armor," giving it the power to protect from that arrow. "Realiticaly," very little armor currently in the game would work. Why are we even talking about cloth armor? And whether or not it protects from an arrow? If you really want to know something here is a piece if info recently brought up about cloth armor and how good it actually was. Kudos towards Blocki for informing and correcting me about this. The reason skimpy cloth armor that exists in the game keeps being mentioned is that for some reason people keep trying to hold bikini chainmail to a higher "realistic" standard. Trying to apply "realism" to one piece of armor(chainmail bikini) and not all the armors that the game already has is unfair.

Steel plate mail is quite effective at stopping handheld black powder weapons and lead ball shot. Only a precision strike to a joint (which was nigh-on impossible) or a point-blank shot from a magnum-charged blunderbuss (which may as well have been a canon blast) were able to penetrate it effectively in lab testing. Even a rifled musket could only dent the plates at range. Full plate mail is not nearly as cumbersome as one may assume, and soldiers trained in it are quite comfortable and agile wearing it. They are able to perform all kinds of martial maneuvers, including full-run marching, combat rolls, and wrestling grapples. The main, significant hindrance was in trying to mount a horse, as the saddle could not support enough weight on one side without injuring the animal. 16th and 17th century firearms could penetrate plate armor at a range of 30 meters or less. The resulting wound to the recipient was further complicated by the shrapnel of the damaged armor. There were some armors created to prevent this but they were extremely heavy. Plate armor died out in the early to middle 17th century. A modern rifle would make swiss cheese out of plate mail.

Nah. I'd rather not. I mean hell, I'm still annoyed at how ugly the female Phalanx armor looks compared to the male variant. And this is far better fashion wars anyway. Opinions. Also using and linking to resetera in any argument is an automatic loss lol How far does one take fantasy though? You can sit there and say "well, it's a game" but the fact remains that the game starts to break from reality in more ways than it already has. One thing to have dragons, Asura, etc. But when you have the female armor set that leaves a lot exposed you're just being more perverted than fantasy. Example, you take a male warrior and shoot an arrow at him. Realistically it would bounce off the armor. Do the same with a female character and all the archer would have to do is aim and the female warrior is either dead or badly injured. The only defense to this is that fighting/injuries are determined by stats and RNG mechanics. So you can sit there and say "well the armor's visual doesn't matter as long as the stats stay similar to the male counter part." You going into a fight with very sharp objects...why would you go into it exposed? chainmail/platemail armor great against arrows(unless they are from longbows as the English longbow could penetrate all mail except high quality steel plate...….. not so great for swimming(reality is you should sink), not great against lightning attacks so are we going to apply reality across the board or be selective with where we apply reality? It's a fantasy game and if skimpy light armors composed of silk, cotton, etc. can afford protection in this game. I think a chainmail bikini has no problem fitting in. But this is where fantasy makes sense. And is backed up through characters throughout the genre. For one, just because it is cloth do we sit there and say that you can then run around in skimpy attire. No. Because for each armor goes the story of the class that wears it. Thieves, hunters, rangers, etc have always worn leather armor (mixed with mail) throughout the genre. Where as priests, mages, warlocks, etc have worn cloth. And (ignoring the visuals) despite the protection they garner they still did not afford the same protection as plate armor. And with it came a specific reason why they wore certain armors. Leather for a decent amount of protection but the the maneuverability. Plate for tanks. Cloth because...well I don't know the specific Guild Wars lore why cloth armor is used but to use old D&D logic it is because too much iron/metal effects spells in a negative way. But to go on further, not until the visual rise of fantasy did we start sexualizing women of the genre. In fantasy books you always had women either in dresses that worked with whatever environment they were in that did not over expose any part of the body or you had warrior women fully clad in armor. No matter what kind. Never in books did you see women of fantasy going forth into battle with her breasts hanging out. But yet, with the rise of visual fantasy (comics, tv, movies) you see most of the women with little armor. J.R. Tolkien would hate fantasy today. GRR Martin probably hates the genre in relation to women. And look at his most prominent female warrior. Brienne Tarth. Clad in full plate when entering a battle...not some skimpy outfit. She is a warrior through and through. The women of GoT who are warriors or become warriors are covered in some sort of protection and even the "mages" have full covering with some showing of skin but not the levels of exposure that a lot of the armor here in GW2 has. Are you familiar with Red Sonja? Are you familiar with Dejah Thoris…….. WAY before the Tolkien books and naked as a jaybird Have to say I was not familiar with her. Had to look her up. Interesting concept though...to build a society where nudity is paramount to the system. Did armor have any relevance to them or did they fight naked as well? Do not know as that when I watched the movie it kind of turned me away from getting into the books. all martians were naked fighting or otherwise.... they wore ornamental metals but it was not armor. They fought with swords and had pistols and rifles..... The book A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs was published in 1917 I'm guessing the death count was pretty high as well. Nothing against the books but having armor seems like an intelligent decision. Funny thing though is in real life there have been actual societies who went into battle butt naked. Forget the name of the particular one I am thinking of (Celts?) but they also got so excited in battle that their weapons were not the only thing hard. Further in history on why armor of some sort is a smart idea but during the American Civil War, the only thing one wore was the uniform. A lot of deaths and, most importantly, loss of limbs did not happen when getting shot but after the matter when disease and infection set into the wound. Where if the soldiers had worn adequate protective armor they would have bounced the shots and protected themselves...history would be a lot different if the Confederacy used shields. Yeah, armor became ineffective after gunpowder..... I don't think shields would have done much good either considering that the soldier had to lug a rifle aroundmaking t the shield a burden and the bullets would have penetrated the shield With Civil War Rifles the shield would have stood up. The innovations afterwards though. And yes, I doubt that a soldier would have carried a rifle and shield. I was thinking the front line carried shields only while the second, third, and fourth line had the rifles. Similar to the Spartan Phalanx but with Rifles instead of spears/javelins. Still used formation maneuvers in the Civil War...even though the Spanish American War directly after did not use such tactics at all...go figure... In gw2 wearing full metal armor would be terrible against a guy with a rifle if we were applying realism. First the bearer of full metal armor would be extremely slow making a great target and the armor would offer scant protection against bullets. This is only if we are looking at it realistically..... In fact the female in the chain mail bikini would have a greater chance than her fully armored female counterpart because of a greater ability to dodge, duck and run quickly If you applied any realism to some of the heavy armor of the game it would clash. With the armor of GW2 yes they would be slow, makes a great target, but the armor would be great protection against bullets tbh...just because there is so much of it. Real bullets of our world...don't know. But strictly in GW2 then heavy plated armor should be able to bounce most rifle shots. And to be honest, just cause you can move quicker in a chain mail bikini does not make you safer from a bullet traveling thousands of times faster than you. You cannot outrun a bullet nor would you stand a chance on dodging every shot coming from a rifle from a competent shooter. Heavy plate armor would not stop bullets. There is a reason that plate armor stopped being used in the early 17th century. Even those crude firearms made in the 16th and 17th century were easily penetrating plate armor. Plate armor capable of stopping a bullet would have to be incredibly thick and would be so heavy that nobody would be able to wear it.