Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 09 Jul 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 04:08 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Revenant

Yesterday, 06:36 PM

He'll be a norn. There are ten combinations of sex and race. Male norn and female human are the only two that I don't have so it has to be one of those.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

01 December 2014 - 06:25 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 01 December 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

If you're talking about GW1 surely you mean PvXwiki, not gwbuilds.com.

Most people knew that you didn't need to run the exact build being asked for, just something close enough to it that the build still rolled and that its main function wasn't changed. (i.e. replacing DKiss with Orison? Fine. Replacing it with Searing Flames? Kick) If there even was a preferred build that people needed to ask for. Usually it was enough just to provide some benefit and not weigh down the team.
The people that were exactly like you describe weren't worth playing with anyway, so why do you complain?

If on the other hand you are talking about those "somewhat effective" builds like beastmaster-mesmers, or elementalists without any sort of energy management, or warriors with Dolyak Signet, Sever Artery, and 6 healing spells, then no, you were not being "somewhat effective", you were just being a dick to the rest of the team, and it was the duty of the party leader to prevent you from wasting 7 other players' time.

Indeed. PvXWiki. It had been long enough that I'd forgotten the actual name of the site.

While I don't object to captains trying to maintain a suitable team dynamic, I certainly object to the rude phrasing and the lack of flexibility. I wasn't, for example, bringing an elementalist "without any sort of energy management." I was bringing an Ele with good energy management but built for moderate damage + utility in Earth rather than high damage in Fire. Frankly, I'd not even mind being excluded from groups so often if the response had more often been more polite rather than a "Get lost, scrub" grounded in the expectation that I was studying the meta.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

30 November 2014 - 02:56 PM

View PostHaggus, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

As for elitism, in any competitive game, you have to earn your stripes to play with anyone in the harder parts of the game.  Despite what Mommy and Daddy told you, you are not just as special as everyone else.  Those with more skill and experience than you in something are better than you in that thing.  deal with it.  In GW, that was shown in its PvP and elite Missions(Mallyx et al). If you wanted to go casual, fine.  Just don't get pissed when someone wants to see your build.  Your build and weapons choices showed what you knew about your class, and what you knew about synergy.  I wouldn't turn someone away for not having the flavor of the month on their bar.  If they had stuff that looked like they picked the skills at random, or took no account of their energy pool or cast times, I'd give them suggestions.  Most people took those suggestions.  Some were a-holes, and were kicked.  Those are usually the ones who turn around and cry about how "elitist" the game was.  It's not elitism.  It's not wanting to wipe because you decided to run all healing on your monk bar and carry 3 15E skills!

This would have put you a cut above most of the players demanding to see one's bar. Whether they were looking for a FotM build or just their preferred flavour for the profession one was playing, the conversation would go something like this:
Snob: Jargon-name-for-some-build or kick.
Me: What is Jargon-name-for-some-build?
Snob: OMFG. Don't you even keep up with gwbuilds.com? n00b
Me: Okay, I've looked it up now. I don't think I can use that build. I don't have that elite skill and I'd have to buy all new runes for my armour.
Snob: Bai!

I really don't think that most players "earned" those skill bars, in that they hadn't come up with those ideas themselves. They just copied and implemented what somebody else had devised. They had no respect whatsoever for a less effective (but nonetheless somewhat effective) build that somebody had devised independently. If it wasn't good enough to be internet-famous, it wasn't good enough for their party.

In Topic: [Answered] Why no second slot weapon upgrade?

21 November 2014 - 11:42 PM

View PostJemFayCrystal, on 21 November 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

There are two slots.  One slot is already filled.  I am wearing complete armor set and the weapon should also be in the set.  It was all level 35 bought from guild vendors.

So what's with the unused 2nd weapon slot saying "existing upgrade will be destroyed" if I try to add a 2nd upgrade to my weapon?

You have to choose the slot. It will always automatically default to the first slot, even if the second slot is empty. You have to manually drag the new upgrade into the second, empty slot.

In Topic: GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

13 November 2014 - 10:32 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 13 November 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

So, since the amount that is being taken away from the user is small and since consumers encounter other consumer unfriendly practices throughout their daily life, this type of consumer unfriendly ideas aren't worth pointing out?
I am sorry, I don't see anything here that would negate what the OP is saying: on the contrary, you seem to agree with what he is saying and all you are saying is that you are not bothered if A.Net introduces certain solutions that negatively impact consumers.

Honestly, I am not bothered if you accept consumer unfriendly practices. But I am extremely bothered if you tell people that they should simply accept these consumer unfriendly practices because they do not bother you, which is what your "Next thread, please." statement implied.

I don't think that's quite what he's saying. Here's my interpretation.
Player buys 10 gems every month but only spends 9 of them. Is that 1 remaining gem wasted? Of course not. Eventually, you'll accumulate the 9 gems that make up your typical monthly spending and you can either choose not to buy that month or buy anyway and spend twice your normal expenditure. It's only if you quit the game with gems remaining that there's any actual "waste" going on.

I'm not saying that this new mechanism is more friendly. Just that it's not quite as unfriendly as it's being portrayed.