sevenDEADLY.5281

However, there is something VERY multiplayer about it. This whole thread boils down to "I don't like playing with other people, so arenanet should NEVER make any more new coop content EVER and no one else should be allowed to have it either!"

It lasts about 3 seconds then disappears. What's the actual problem here?

SAB is in April, unless I'm in some kind of crazy time loop, its March.

If this is the case then then the research would be invalid as the questions themselves would be leading and biased.

Land Spear. Please, for the love of god. Make it happen

I can't think of any game ever where blocking someone magically makes them invisible on your screen. Sounds extremely frivolous. Not every minor inconvenience in life needs to be fixed by some higher level of authority, in this case Arenanet.

This game already has many armor sets that are visually identical between sexes, and many that are not. Having different appearing armors between sexes is not a situation of abuse. The percentage of "sexy" armors vs non are also not in favor of someone trying to act like this game is forcing female characters to be dressed this way. If you personally are seeing a lot of "sexy" characters it's because people are choosing to make their characters that way. There are far more non sexy armor choices in the game than there are scantily clad ones. More options are great, except as stated many many times already in this thread, creating 4 different versions of a single piece of armor per race instead of 2 is literally twice the work for barely any reward on Arenanet's part. Armor's in this game are custom fitted, they're not as simple as hitting a button to fit it to a form. Sometimes they make armor sets visually identical between the sexes, and sometimes they don't so there are actually options for everyone. My guardian for example is a huge norn wearing gladiator style armor that I would certainly not consider "fully armored." He has a lot of skin showing.

How is statistical data bigotry? I made no comment about different communities or inference of hatred towards anyone. Why is statistical data suddenly "bigotry" when it's not 100% supporting a particular side? If I have 10 apples and nine of them are red and one is green, stating such doesn't suddenly make the data bigotry against green apples.

TLDR: I don't like something, so no one must like it.

Even if the numbers were doubled it would still be an overwhelming minority. 88% > 12%. If your assumption is that 115 million people in the US are just "hiding it" then that's an unrealistic assumption. I have to once again point out that members of a minority group who constantly surround themselves with that minority group will always overestimate their numbers.

There are many armor sets that are the same between sexes, and many that aren't. Instead of demanding the ones that aren't be changed, maybe just use the ones that are instead of demanding the game be changed for your own personal taste while ignoring other's.

That is not game data. Additionally, LGBTQ is a separate issue from fashion, so I'm not sure why you're making them out to be mutually exclusive. Typical gender stereotypes such as man = masculine and female = feminine are the way they are because they are the broadly traditional view of the sexes. While not mutually exclusive, in traditional views most men prefer to dress as men and most women prefer to dress as women. Even among members of the LGBTQ community this is the case for a fair amount. Your argument seems to be that you think for some reason a much much larger percentage of LGBTQ members consist of game players than the average population. If this is the case than I would point out that it is now you that needs to show your work and prove this. Again, members of any given smaller community always overestimate their group size because they surround themselves with said group constantly, giving them a false impression of the world ie: all my friends are x so people everywhere must be x.

Some quick research shows that roughly 4.5% of the US population and 6% in the EU identify as LGBTQ oriented. Saying he doesn't speak for others also applies to you, and the facts are that such a small percentage of population does qualify technically as niche. Any person that is part of a group always overestimates that group's size because they surround themselves with it. But numbers don't lie. So doubling your workload to cater to 4.5% to 6% of a population is unfortunately unrealistic.

Not everything designed in the game that isn't directly suited towards you is some purposeful plan against you.

They specifically stated they purposely did not go this route by intention. PvE players have no reason to covet a separate WvW mount except for impractical visual choices, just as WvW players have no reason to covet a separate PvE mount except for impractical visual choices. You can rage against this choice all you want, it doesn't change the fact that this was a purposeful decision.

Being able to summon the warclaw in pve and it being useful in pve are two different things. As others have already pointed out, Arenanet themselves have stated several times they have no intention of making warclaw a useful pve mount. All the argumental rage you'd like to conjur will not change this.

No not really. I'm not a paid researcher of information that was previously released about the game. There are plenty of dev videos and interviews about the warclaw from its release

They did this on purpose, fully explained exactly why it would be this way, and have never intended for the warclaw to be useful in PvE.

No, those massive 33% to 66% damage reductions through power coefficients are wvw and pvp only. Hence why they're under the "wvw changes" or "pvp changes" section of updates only.

Damage reductions are in pvp and wvw only.

For the purposes of monetization why would people like you care if other people had the option to pay to have other guild slots? Like the level of closed minded here is baffling. Do you really want to force other people [who are willing to financially support the game that you also play] into your little box and deprive the developers of potential revenue in the process? Ah, so you're the "make stuff I want and monetize it" crowd. Monetizing build templates worked out so well... it was only followed by the worst quarter for Arenanet to date on the finance report.

Most games let you join one guild. Why isn't five good enough? Is ten good enough? Is twenty good enough? What arbitrary number is to your liking?

If you read my initial post I already agreed strikes should not be tied to metas so I'm unclear of what our disagreement is.

There are both kinds of players. The ones who don't want to raid are not the people asking for easier raids. They're the ones saying raids are bad for the game, that they should never have been introduced, and/or that ANet should not tie open world and raid-lite content together for rewards purposes. Each time a new poster has started a thread about easier raids, the same posters jump in to inflate the thread. A few new voices (who usually post once, then disappear) will sometimes chime in. At least half of the posts are arguments against easier raids. The "huge" threads about easy raids are 90% back and forth arguments by the same people -- and those same arguments appear in all of those threads. If you study what's being said, also, most of the demand for easier raids is about easier access to raid rewards. This could mean that posters demanding easier raids may not actually want to up their game. Thus, strikes may be training wheels content, they are not what at least some of the players who post in those threads ask for. Yes, but I wholeheartedly agreed from the begining that meta achievements should NOT be tied to strikes. I just dared make the opinion that something should encourage players to try to increase their skill level in the game beyond auto attacking in a mix of bad gear with random traits and pointed out that there's a jump in difficulty from open world boss to raid boss. If the argument is that challenging content should not exist in the game because someone might not be able to do it, well that's just crazy.

PvP existed from launch. Raids didn't exist until 3.5 years after launch. If you don't see a difference between something the game was advertised with that I new would be there when I bought and started supporting the game by choice, I'm not sure whatt to tell you. Do you think people who don't want to raid, didn't come to the forums and fight against raids being introduced into the game in the first place? Because I remember those posts. PvP has always been there and I accept it because I paid for a game that has it. Do you know what I didn't pay for? A game that requires a healer and a tank. A game that makes you jump through hoops to get a dungeon group together, because any five people could go in. The way the game was advertised. Like it or not, raids changed the game from what was advertised into something that was not. And to a lot of peope that felt like betrayal. The same can't be said for PvP. MMOs change. Ask WoW players if its the same today as it was at launch. It's not my fault, or anyone else's fault that you've been arguing with tirelessly, that you can't understand that fact.