Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ad sec scg meta everwhere geting out of hand

You don't get charged by the word or character on the forums, so, complete words might help people understand better.  I'm guessing you're complaining about the Scourge being everywhere and killing yo

Yupp that's a nice dictionary definition you have there. I have one for you too.   Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently.   Really it comes down to your subjective viewpo

I do see the problem, but can't understand the community. There are some very skewed arguments in this thread. First and foremost, the current balancing issues are a huge generalization even though it's a problem specific to a small part of fractal content, namely CMs and especially 100 CM. In raids, we probably have the highest degree of diversity we ever had. People used that wingman site as evidence for fractal imbalance. You can use the same site as evidence for build diversity in raids.

Even then, wingman is by no means representative. When it comes to gaming communities, you always have to consider the 80/20/5 rule, meaning 80% of players will never engage with anything beyond the game itself. 20% will actually bother to go online and read something about the game, and a mere 5% will be engaged so much as to actually bother to post and communicate with other players. If you also consider that GW2 targets the hardcore casual audience, you have to adjust these guidelines even more meaning that a few million logs on wingman may only represent a small %age or even ‰age of the total playerbase. I didn't even know that that site existed before this discussion came up.

(Most) People also don't seem to understand the main reason why something - and especially the current fractal trio - is META for that specific game mode. In fact, that main problem only came up once in this thread; the issue at hand being role compression and thus the main issue of the balancing issues currently being Firebrand instead of Scourge. You will never be able to balance the game properly if you don't rebalance the game from the ground up. That doesn't just mean access to boons, but also versatility, adaptability and useability of utilities and (weapon) skills. Builds generally need to be good in more than just one field to be great for content which is designed for small parties of only 5 people if you want proper balance. Hell, the reason why Chrono and Druid have and always will have a place in raid META and were META in fractals for years is specifically also for these reasons. Considering how many developers Arena Net lost during the last few years, you won't ever see a proper balancing happen.

Talking about Scourge, Renegade and Firebrand specifically, I do believe that both Scourge and Renegade are actually quite ok in terms of balance. People tend to forget that overall damage doesn't equate to target damage. If you compare target damage, Scourge is actually fine. You could shave off a bit of DPS, but I don't actually think that that's necessary. Renegade is actually also quite fine - at least in what it brings as support. I'd also say that the DPS potential while playing an Alacrity build is fine - Diviner being at fault here. The only real outlier is Firebrand since it just brings too many things. You can adjust Scourge by adjusting Exposed. I wouldn't touch Epidemic since that has already been heavily nerfed after people found out about Epidemic bouncing a couple of years ago. Renegade is tricky. I'd probably leave it as is though and may only just adjust Exposed too. Firebrand and by extension Guardian though needs to be reworked entirely.

If you want to change the fractal META, you at least have to offer viable alternatives to the current META. Instead of doing so, Arena Net basically forced the current META onto us after nerfing Chrono/Druid. The fractal META problem also lies in how fractals are designed. Defiance bars and "Exposed" are quite common in fractals thus currently favoring cDPS builds in a variety of fractals. NPNG also is an issue for pDPS in general (which it wasn't when Chrono was still META - at least not to this extent). We also had the buff to Torment. Agony reduces healing and thus favors Aegis, Stability and Barrier. Encounter mechanics also play a role in how they favor certain builds. Epidemic is pretty nice for Shades in 100 CM. If you had to kill them with CC, maybe people wouldn't be all that prone to playing Scourge in that fractal specifically. In essence, the current fractal balance issues are an amalgamation of various elements. In that regard, you could easily break or worsen balance in other game modes if you change one of these elements too strongly.

Someone said that complex gameplay should be elevated. To that I say: No. GW2 wants to be an action combat focused game. In an action combat focused game, you will have to actively engange with game and encounter mechanics and react accordingly. From what I've gathered from the latest articles about the upcoming Strike Missions, Arena Net also wants players to be more mobile in PvE Content - maybe even trying to break the "stack and attack" gameplay that's dominant in PvE content. In that regard, you simply can't have overly complex rotations/gameplay like - just to name an example - cDPS Weaver; it just doesn't suit the type of game GW2 wants to be. Weaver would be awesome in your classic tab-targetting focused type of game. In a game that heavily focuses on action combat, you want flexible and versatile builds like cDPS Scourge, Firebrand, cDPS/pDPS Soulbeast, pDPS Holosmith, Renegade, pDPS Reaper or Berserker.

Lastly, I also have to agree with the already mentioned issue that players are - at least partially - at fault. The GW2 community suffers from a kind of overoptimization when it comes to the time you have to invest into a certain activity. Everything has to be fast and easy and yield the highest amount of rewards possible.

PS #1: I don't think that EoD will change anything, really. The EoD specializations all look rather dull and useless when it comes to party- and squad-based PvE content.

PS #2: As a disclaimer, I do admit that I mainly play Scourge in fractals. I also play other builds though - cDPS/pDPS Soulbeast, pDPS Holosmith, cDPS Reaper etc. That the "PUG-CM-META" bled into normal T4s doesn't mean that other compositions aren't viable. They are, in fact. I still do see a lot of other builds like Dragonhunter or Berserker as DPS in daily T4 fractals. In that regard, people should stop equating CMs with fractals in general.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Raizel.8175 said:

I do see the problem, but can't understand the community. There are some very skewed arguments in this thread. First and foremost, the current balancing issues are a huge generalization even though it's a problem specific to a small part of fractal content, namely CMs and especially 100 CM. In raids, we probably have the highest degree of diversity we ever had. People used that wingman site as evidence for fractal imbalance. You can use the same site as evidence for build diversity in raids.

Even then, wingman is by no means representative. When it comes to gaming communities, you always have to consider the 80/20/5 rule, meaning 80% of players will never engage with anything beyond the game itself. 20% will actually bother to go online and read something about the game, and a mere 5% will be engaged so much as to actually bother to post and communicate with other players. If you also consider that GW2 targets the hardcore casual audience, you have to adjust these guidelines even more meaning that a few million logs on wingman may only represent a small %age or even ‰age of the total playerbase. I didn't even know that that site existed before this discussion came up.

(Most) People also don't seem to understand the main reason why something - and especially the current fractal trio - is META for that specific game mode. In fact, that main problem only came up once in this thread; the issue at hand being role compression and thus the main issue of the balancing issues currently being Firebrand instead of Scourge. You will never be able to balance the game properly if you don't rebalance the game from the ground up. That doesn't just mean access to boons, but also versatility, adaptability and useability of utilities and (weapon) skills. Builds generally need to be good in more than just one field to be great for content which is designed for small parties of only 5 people if you want proper balance. Hell, the reason why Chrono and Druid have and always will have a place in raid META and were META in fractals for years is specifically also for these reasons. Considering how many developers Arena Net lost during the last few years, you won't ever see a proper balancing happen.

Talking about Scourge, Renegade and Firebrand specifically, I do believe that both Scourge and Renegade are actually quite ok in terms of balance. People tend to forget that overall damage doesn't equate to target damage. If you compare target damage, Scourge is actually fine. You could shave off a bit of DPS, but I don't actually think that that's necessary. Renegade is actually also quite fine - at least in what it brings as support. I'd also say that the DPS potential while playing an Alacrity build is fine - Diviner being at fault here. The only real outlier is Firebrand since it just brings too many things. You can adjust Scourge by adjusting Exposed. I wouldn't touch Epidemic since that has already been heavily nerfed after people found out about Epidemic bouncing a couple of years ago. Renegade is tricky. I'd probably leave it as is though and may only just adjust Exposed too. Firebrand and by extension Guardian though needs to be reworked entirely.

If you want to change the fractal META, you at least have to offer viable alternatives to the current META. Instead of doing so, Arena Net basically forced the current META onto us after nerfing Chrono/Druid. The fractal META problem also lies in how fractals are designed. Defiance bars and "Exposed" are quite common in fractals thus currently favoring cDPS builds in a variety of fractals. NPNG also is an issue for pDPS in general (which it wasn't when Chrono was still META - at least not to this extent). We also had the buff to Torment. Agony reduces healing and thus favors Aegis, Stability and Barrier. Encounter mechanics also play a role in how they favor certain builds. Epidemic is pretty nice for Shades in 100 CM. If you had to kill them with CC, maybe people wouldn't be all that prone to playing Scourge in that fractal specifically. In essence, the current fractal balance issues are an amalgamation of various elements. In that regard, you could easily break or worsen balance in other game modes if you change one of these elements too strongly.

Someone said that complex gameplay should be elevated. To that I say: No. GW2 wants to be an action combat focused game. In an action combat focused game, you will have to actively engange with game and encounter mechanics and react accordingly. From what I've gathered from the latest articles about the upcoming Strike Missions, Arena Net also wants players to be more mobile in PvE Content - maybe even trying to break the "stack and attack" gameplay that's dominant in PvE content. In that regard, you simply can't have overly complex rotations/gameplay like - just to name an example - cDPS Weaver; it just doesn't suit the type of game GW2 wants to be. Weaver would be awesome in your classic tab-targetting focused type of game. In a game that heavily focuses on action combat, you want flexible and versatile builds like cDPS Scourge, Firebrand, cDPS/pDPS Soulbeast, pDPS Holosmith, Renegade, pDPS Reaper or Berserker.

Lastly, I also have to agree with the already mentioned issue that players are - at least partially - at fault. The GW2 community suffers from a kind of overoptimization when it comes to the time you have to invest into a certain activity. Everything has to be fast and easy and yield the highest amount of rewards possible.

PS #1: I don't think that EoD will change anything, really. The EoD specializations all look rather dull and useless when it comes to party- and squad-based PvE content.

PS #2: As a disclaimer, I do admit that I mainly play Scourge in fractals. I also play other builds though - cDPS/pDPS Soulbeast, pDPS Holosmith, cDPS Reaper etc. That the "PUG-CM-META" bled into normal T4s doesn't mean that other compositions aren't viable. They are, in fact. I still do see a lot of other builds like Dragonhunter or Berserker as DPS in daily T4 fractals. In that regard, people should stop equating CMs with fractals in general.

I'm not going to read this because your premise is borked. It is not just fractal CM and streamers are demonstrating that they perform significantly better using comps that stack these classes than more balanced comps in raids as well.

It's all instanced PvE content stacking firebrands, renegade and scourge and it doesn't need to be the 90% number wingman is showing for it to be a problem.  It's time to call it what it is.  Scourge and renegade need trimming and firebrand needs a gang of developers with nerf bats and maybe even a real bat at this point.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I'm not going to read this because your premise is borked. It is not just fractal CM and streamers are demonstrating that they perform significantly better using comps that stack these classes than more balanced comps in raids as well.

It's all instanced PvE content stacking firebrands, renegade and scourge and it doesn't need to be the 90% number wingman is showing for it to be a problem.  It's time to call it what it is.  Scourge and renegade need trimming and firebrand needs a gang of developers with nerf bats and maybe even a real bat at this point.

It's not. It is a fractal problem. Your wingman site already shows you that diversity in raids is rather balanced - as opposed to fractals. You also can't use Streamers - especially the most well-known Mighty Teapot - as reference. Those people - basically the 0.0~01% of the elite-players of the raid community - are not representative for the overall build-usage in raids. Again: Your wingman site already shows you that diversity in raids is rather balanced. In raids, you most likely also won't stack these classes. Raids simply work differently than fractals. In raids, Scourge and Renegade are arguably in an ok'ish state. Sure, you could tone down the DPS a bit, but that could potentially lead to Scourge being unwanted again in that kind of content.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raizel.8175 said:

It's not. It is a fractal problem. Your wingman site already shows you that diversity in raids is rather balanced - as opposed to fractals. You also can't use Streamers - especially the most well-known Mighty Teapot - as reference. Those people - basically the 0.0~01% of the elite-players of the raid community - are not representative for the overall build-usage in raids. Again: Your wingman site already shows you that diversity in raids is rather balanced. In raids, you most likely also won't stack these classes. Raids simply work differently than fractals. In raids, Scourge and Renegade are arguably in an ok'ish state. Sure, you could tone down the DPS a bit, but that could potentially lead to Scourge being unwanted again in that kind of content.

So you think if the high end get better results with classes that are really forgiving and easy to get results with the pug meta won't follow?  

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Hold on ... we are talking about meta here ... the reality is that a build being meta is not standard, it's an exception, especially in fractals. So the fact that players might not adopt EoD specs for meta ... that's not a problem. If Anet considers it a problem they will change it based on their criteria. based on the history of this game, I'm going to say you shouldn't bet on it though. 

That's different from what I'm saying.  I am saying that it s plainly obvious which specs will be used and which aren't.  

7 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

This  whole part is nonsence just by the virtue of elites not being released.

We've done the betas.  We know what the new elites can do.  Unless there is some big yet unannounced changes, things will stay the course.  If anet does implement changes, it is because of the very same logic and predictions that I am using.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

That's different from what I'm saying.  I am saying that it s plainly obvious which specs will be used and which aren't.  

 

When you say 'used', I'm going to assume you mean "for optimal teams" ... because if you aren't, then I'm just going to point out you don't know what people will use or why. 

For meta, Eod Spec use might be easier to determine at a glance ... and you know I'm just going to tell you that if a specific build or spec isn't meta, that's not a problem either because a build/spec being meta is exceptional, not standard. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

When you say 'used', I'm going to assume you mean "for optimal teams" ... because if you aren't, then I'm just going to point out you don't know what people will use or why. 

For meta, Eod Spec use might be easier to determine at a glance ... and you know I'm just going to tell you that if a specific build or spec isn't meta, that's not a problem either because a build/spec being meta is exceptional, not standard. 

But I do know what people will use, and why.  I just explained it.  Social pressure is just as real in this game as any enrage timer.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

But I do know what people will use, and why.  I just explained it.  Social pressure is just as real in this game as any enrage timer.  

Social pressure is only a factor in build choice if you decide to play that way ... so no, you don't know the reasons people will make choices and why they make them ... seems to me you actually only know that ONE reason and that one reason is only because of people making that choice to play that way in the first place. So ... make different choices in how to play and this isn't a problem. Then you use any reason you like. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Social pressure is only a factor in build choice if you decide to play that way ... so no, you don't know the reasons people will make choices and why they make them ... seems to me you actually only know that ONE reason and that one reason is only because of people making that choice to play that way in the first place. So ... make different choices in how to play and this isn't a problem. Then you use any reason you like. 

No it isn't. Social pressure doesn't stop at feels and ego.  Other people won't let you play with them on content that requires other people.  The reasons why people will make their choices are known, and plainly obvious, because it follows through from the facts.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

For meta, Eod Spec use might be easier to determine at a glance ... and you know I'm just going to tell you that if a specific build or spec isn't meta, that's not a problem either because a build/spec being meta is exceptional, not standard. 

What does your signature mean about crushing meta think?

And what do you mean by a build being meta is exceptional, not standard?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

What does your signature mean about crushing meta think?

And what do you mean by a build being meta is exceptional, not standard?

Obtena is appealing to relativity to dismiss all common suppositions and standards in this thread.  There's a reason why my response to him is basically "Yah huh."  For example, what he means by a meta build being exceptional is that there can only be one meta and no others.  It is impossible to make everything the most effective tactic.  What he's deliberately omitting is that the difference between meta and non-meta comps is so vast as to create an oppressive environment that leaves a large portion of the playerbase dissatisfied.  Dissatisfied players don't play and don't spend money on the game, which is an objective problem for Arenanet.  

 

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think.  If someone says that you cannot know something or question something, that means rational thought is their enemy.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Obtena is appealing to relativity to dismiss all common suppositions and standards in this thread.  There's a reason why my response to him is basically "Yah huh."  For example, what he means by a meta build being exceptional is that there can only be one meta and no others.  It is impossible to make everything the most effective tactic.  What he's deliberately omitting is that the difference between meta and non-meta comps is so vast as to create an oppressive environment that leaves a large portion of the playerbase dissatisfied.  Dissatisfied players don't play and don't spend money on the game, which is an objective problem for Arenanet.  

 

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think.  If someone says that you cannot know something or question something, that means rational thought is their enemy.  

In before "hurr durr No I'm not!"

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Obtena is appealing to relativity to dismiss all common suppositions and standards in this thread.  There's a reason why my response to him is basically "Yah huh."  For example, what he means by a meta build being exceptional is that there can only be one meta and no others.  It is impossible to make everything the most effective tactic.  What he's deliberately omitting is that the difference between meta and non-meta comps is so vast as to create an oppressive environment that leaves a large portion of the playerbase dissatisfied.  Dissatisfied players don't play and don't spend money on the game, which is an objective problem for Arenanet.  

 

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think.  If someone says that you cannot know something or question something, that means rational thought is their enemy.  

Agreed. It's an appeal to a classic black and white fallacy. It's not like there has ever been a meta that was less oppressive, and people used to play way more diverse builds... oh wait!! It's almost as if the gap between builds matters more than if a meta exists or not.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

It is impossible to make everything the most effective tactic.

I'll let Obtena speak for themselves, but it disheartens me to see Meta used with the definition "Most Efficient Tactics Available".

If that were the case, as I said in my prior long post, then no matter how much balance is given, there will always only be 3-4 builds that are used.

Typically we would look at over-powerful compositions and call them Meta breaking.  Think 10 Chrono Raids for a minute.  This became Meta-Breaking since it only required one profession and excluded everything else.  It was also more capable of completing content than traditional Raid comps.  Anet 'fixed' this in a patch and allowed the Raid Meta to rebalance itself.  Was the Raid meta for a few months just 10 Chrono?  Not at all, it was very diverse, even though there was a 'Most Effective" way to clear content.

Again looking at Raid Meta, there are many builds that are interchangeable as there is greater margin for build development.  Any profession you can bring to a raid is part of the Raid Meta.  Where 10 Chrono was becoming the 'Most Efficient" the actual Meta included any profession build that could contribute to the 10 man comp.

I don't look at the Big 3 in Fractals as being Meta Breaking, just the easiest way for the most players to work together.  Most players, unfortunately, do not invest the time or energy to be flexible with their builds and adapt for different group comps.  Look at all the players who copy/pasta a Meta build and then can't play as intended.

You do not have to take the Big 3, but you do need to be competent enough with your profession and game mechanics in order to figure out a different way of completing it.  Most people don't care enough since they just want to get in, get rewarded and move on.  If some website says do this comp, then that's what most players will do without understanding why, and then everyone parrots it as gospel.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

No it isn't. Social pressure doesn't stop at feels and ego.  

But Social pressure does stop depending on how you choose to play the game. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

I'll let Obtena speak for themselves, but it disheartens me to see Meta used with the definition "Most Efficient Tactics Available".

Until I played GW2, I had not heard the term 'meta' so I have no other point of reference to have compared the term. In some cases where I find people get hung up about defining what meta means to have a pedantic argument, I will just use plain words and say what it means in GW2 ... it's basically 'what is optimal'. 

10 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

If that were the case, as I said in my prior long post, then no matter how much balance is given, there will always only be 3-4 builds that are used.

This, and the rest of your post, is completely lost on people. They just can't get their head into the fact that meta, whatever it is, does not prevent them from playing builds they want. 

  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

 What he's deliberately omitting is that the difference between meta and non-meta comps is so vast as to create an oppressive environment that leaves a large portion of the playerbase dissatisfied.  

It's not omitted, it's just not relevant because it goes without saying that non-meta comps aren't as optimal as meta comps and there is a gap. (if that creates an 'oppressive' environment for a player, they just need to choose a different way to play). If a team, regardless of its composition, can complete content, then the gap between what they play and what is meta is irrelevant. The relevant measure here isn't the size of the performance gap because that has no bearing on the success of teams. 

The bottomline:  it doesn't matter if there is a gap or how big it is ... it doesn't stop anyone from making choices to enable them to play how they want and be successful. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not omitted, it's just not relevant because it goes without saying that non-meta comps aren't as optimal as meta comps and there is a gap. (if that creates an 'oppressive' environment for a player, they just need to choose a different way to play). If a team, regardless of its composition, can complete content, then the gap between what they play and what is meta is irrelevant. The relevant measure here isn't the size of the performance gap because that has no bearing on the success of teams. 

The bottomline:  it doesn't matter if there is a gap or how big it is ... it doesn't stop anyone from making choices to enable them to play how they want and be successful. 

Dude I'm pretty sure saying disregard the balance is a bad argument in a discussion about balance. But I'm a little nutty so who knows?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Dude I'm pretty sure saying disregard the balance is a bad argument in a discussion about balance. But I'm a little nutty so who knows?

It is ... but I never said disregard the balance in the first place so yeah, probably a little. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ganathar.4956 said:

Agreed. It's an appeal to a classic black and white fallacy. It's not like there has ever been a meta that was less oppressive, and people used to play way more diverse builds... oh wait!! It's almost as if the gap between builds matters more than if a meta exists or not.

Mind.  Blown.  Now let's get back to arguing with Obtena anyway because exposing those weak kitten arguments never stopped them from posting before.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It is ... but I never said disregard the balance in the first place so yeah, probably a little. 

you said " it doesn't matter if there is a gap or how big it is ... it doesn't stop anyone from making choices to enable them to play how they want and be successful." you are saying ignore the balance, play how you want. And I don't think playing how you want will make you successful. I doubt it will make you successful in finding groups. Pretty certain if you aren't performing up to snuff they'll kick you and find someone playing a meta build that fits easier in the team comp and performs more reliably. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I didn't use those exact words and you can't prove I did! So, HA!

Well, that's true right ... I don't think the existences of a range or gap or whatever you want to call it is the same as a lack of balance. Again ... not everything can be meta, so that gap/range/whatever will exist. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

you said " it doesn't matter if there is a gap or how big it is ... it doesn't stop anyone from making choices to enable them to play how they want and be successful." you are saying ignore the balance, play how you want.

I know what I said ... and that's not saying to ignore balance. That's what YOU are TRYING to pretend it says. 

Quote

And I don't think playing how you want will make you successful. 

Good, you shouldn't think that. I don't think that. Being successful in this game has nothing to do with playing how you want.

Here is what is going on ... you don't understand what I'm writing here. Now you are going to tell me what you think I said to argue with me to 'prove' me wrong. That's not going to work for you. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...