Guild Wars 2

Totally agree on sub 80 scaling.

So Colesy, don’t you think that everything would have been so much more interesting if Anet did not nerf FGS and people started findings ways to break speed records anyway just with better strategies like they do now? Don’t you think that people were getting mind-blocked with FGS, saying it required no talent, while you just admitted that it did require tactics? And looking at the fact that the new tactics are better than the FGS tactics, don’t you think that the nerf was simply useless? Ok I’ll give you one thing: it forced people to think. That’s it.

But then again, maybe the fact that people weren’t thinking before is what lead to the FGS nerf in the first place Hopefully people will think before asking for IB nerf …

Or even better: people will ask for more meaningful changes to the game.

Zelyhn my dear, I love you. Let’s lay this subject down and talk about what is the next challenge for ele. Any skilled ele wanna solo Svanirgandr or Grawl shaman?

Iris Ng.9845:

Zelyhn my dear, I love you. Let’s lay this subject down and talk about what is the next challenge for ele. Any skilled ele wanna solo Svanirgandr or Grawl shaman?

Dear Iris, I am honestly wondering what his opinion is: what if people broke records using new tactics without the FGS nerf?

I am not trying to provoke him. I don’t hold grudges

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

So Colesy, don’t you think that everything would have been so much more interesting if Anet did not nerf FGS and people started findings ways to break speed records anyway just with better strategies like they do now? Don’t you think that people were getting mind-blocked with FGS, saying it required no talent, while you just admitted that it did require tactics? And looking at the fact that the new tactics are better than the FGS tactics, don’t you think that the nerf was simply useless? Ok I’ll give you one thing: it forced people to think. That’s it.

I think this gets to the real world situation of government mandated fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. The automakers cry when increase levels of regulation/efficiency are introduced, but the restrictions always end up spurring innovation and the R&D done to deal with the new mandates tend to lead to patents that make the automakers more money in the long run.

It strikes me as very similar to our situation. Restricting one omnipresent option opened up a world of innovation. To me, that is a good thing. You’re free to disagree, I won’t blame you.

In regards to ice bow, I see no reason to nerf it. Ice Storm is only a DPS increase against a relatively small amount of dungeon bosses and Deep Freeze could easily be replaced by Bane Signet for basically the same effect. I don’t think nerfing Ice bow would have the same effect as FGS since I don’t think Ice Bow actually warps the meta around it.

I like your analogy.

It does not answer the question though: what if innovation took place without the need of regulations? Obviously that would have been better for the competition. The only reason why it did occur before was that people were relying blindly on the government to fix the issue while they had all the tools in their hands. Why did people end up begging the government? Why did players end up begging Anet instead of just trying? I think the mind set had a lot to do with that. What do you think?

In addition, what if despite the regulation, innovation did not take place? People would cry, like you say. And they would simply cry and cry. People would be worse off.

These two considerations raise the question: why regulate in the first place?

Edit: a bit of french economics propaganda, to conceptualise the debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

I like your analogy.

It does not answer the question though: what if innovation took place without the need of regulations? Obviously that would have been better for the competition. The only reason why it did occur before was that people were relying blindly on the government to fix the issue while they had all the tools in their hands. Why did people end up begging the government? Why did players end up begging Anet instead of just trying? I think the mind set had a lot to do with that. What do you think?

In regards to the auto-industry, increased fuel standards HAVE to be government mandated otherwise you get into a plight of the commons situation where no company wants to be the one who takes a risk on investing millions into fuel efficiency without the promise of a payoff. it only works when everyone HAS to innovate at the same time. If one person can get away with other people innovating and copy their technology, then everyone will leech and there will be no progress. Not to mention, increasing fuel standards solves various externality issues and could be argued to be a societal good regardless of its effect on the auto-industry.

It’s extremely likely that, eventually, someone would have said, “why are we bothering to LOS this boss why don’t we just kill him where he stands and save 10 seconds?” That may indeed have happened someday. No telling when, though. Much more likely people would simply continue to FGS everything because it was comfortable and easy, especially in casual runs where it minimized the chances of something bad happening.

In addition, what if despite the regulation, innovation did not take place? People would cry, like you say. And they would simply cry and cry. People would be worse off.

Well, in real life there are stifling regulations (red tape) and then there are regulations that prevent fraud, deceit and ensure a fair market. It’s up to the regulator to determine what’s beneficial and what isn’t. You can, and people do, have honest debate about what regulation is good and what is bad.

These two considerations raise the question: why regulate in the first place?

Generally regulation exists when market pressures alone are insufficient to ensure a fair market, such as situations where a private corporation is a monopoly or a monopsy and regulators ensure that consumers are protected since they cannot rely on the market pressure of competition to ensure fair treatment.

In regards to Anet and FGS, my guess is they weren’t unduly concerned with metagaming, tactics etc. For them, it was a matter of removing an unintended effect from a skill. I think we are giving them far too much credit if we believe they even consider PvE meta balance.

Edit: a bit of french economics propaganda, to conceptualise the debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

In a world constrained by inadequate demand, referencing a supply side theory is ironic to me.

I think rather than comparing the nerfing of FGS to the breaking of a window to encourage the building of new windows, how about looking at it from the point of view of Formula One racing which puts severe restrictions on the cars in order to create a brand new racing environment every few years.

hybrid.5027:

it only works when everyone HAS to innovate at the same time.

Which is exactly the case. The gwscr framework created a robust competition environment where innovation is key. People constantly innovate. They just did not dare to look past FGS, for some reason. Why?

how about looking at it from the point of view of Formula One racing which puts severe restrictions on the cars in order to create a brand new racing environment every few years.

Except that in our case the reasoning behind the regulation was that the cars were going too fast. After the regulation the cars went even faster.

Is IB with the dodge back trick really only a small increase in damage? I mean it looks pretty good to me /shrug.

It is actually quite weak for overall dps, but stong for a short burst. That’s the reason why it hasn’t already been used in records two years ago, although you can see “us” doing it in a few AC videos.

It is a big upgrade for burst though yeah? and that’s where we’re seeing it most of the time and the reason we’re seeing it as the new Meta. In everything like SE and below 1 round of IBs and the boss is gone.

Vuln build-up with Lightning Storm wasn’t as good as FGS rush at the time.

Ye I agree with Iris, glyph of storms helps a lot on the icebow burst and also compared to fgs vuln stacking glyph is way way better.

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Except that in our case the reasoning behind the regulation was that the cars were going too fast. After the regulation the cars went even faster.

Not quite perfect.

Before the regulation we had 1200 horsepower engines, but we took corners slowly due to poor tires. After regulation we only have 400 horsepower engines, but our current tires can turn corners at high speeds. As we discovered, cornering is more important than speed in the straight sections.

hybrid.5027:

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Except that in our case the reasoning behind the regulation was that the cars were going too fast. After the regulation the cars went even faster.

Not quite perfect.

Before the regulation we had 1200 horsepower engines, but we took corners slowly due to poor tires. After regulation we only have 400 horsepower engines, but our current tires can turn corners at high speeds. As we discovered, cornering is more important than speed in the straight sections.

Almost correct.

We have exactly the same tires as before the regulation. Technically we are the same, apart from the power of the engine which has been reduced indeed.
Considering just these facts, then the regulation is doing what it was intended to do: we cannot go as fast. Therefore the regulation is sensible – even though a slower race isn’t really what the public would want.

But the public is pleased because since then we have become better at cornering. The momentum we gain from better cornering makes us go faster in the straight lines.

We could have become better at cornering without the regulation. In fact it was certain to happen because the competition was so efficient. But all the strategists were narrowing their minds by focusing only on straight line speed.

Let’s recap:
-The regulation introduced technical constraints
-There was no technical innovation
-There was an important strategic innovation possibility
-There was a mind lock preventing drivers to improve their strategy

The regulation had two effects: impose a technical constraint to reduce straight line speed – which is what it was designed for, and breaking the mind lock of strategists.

If the regulation had only the first effect then it would fit the broken window parable.

Luckily it also had the second effect, which was completely unexpected. The effect of freeing the minds to innovate brought improvements that outweighed the “broken window” effect. This was not foreseen by any of the regulators; and moreover, it was contrary to the intentions of the regulators. But the public is happy.

Now the regulators (or those who asked for the regulation ) say that their actions made the public happy.

But the true issue was that there was a mind lock.

So the regulators had badly anticipated the effect of their actions, and they focused on the wrong issue. A double mistake, which ended like a double negative: a positive outcome.

What caused the mind lock issue?
Why did regulators not focus on this key problem rather than pursuing inefficient technical constraints?

Considering that the environment was perfectly competitive …

Maybe what caused the mind lock was to constantly ask for the regulation?

Please read this again:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/balance/FGS-controversy/first#post4303248

“The point I will make here is that asking for a nerf is a huge mistake.”

Actually anet didnt nerf it because they cared about speed clear times or anything like that. they nerfed it because the skill was never intended to do what it was doing. I said it before but it bears repeating, if you think they are concerned with PvE speed clear record balance you give them too much credit. It was a glorified bug fix for them like the mesmer falling trait was. My guess is the only reason it wasn’t fixed sooner was that it didnt effect PvP or WvW a great deal.

The real victim of the nerf wasnt FGS at all, it was burning retreat/burning speed both of which unfairly caught shrapnel from it.

Also I want to add from a game design/balance perspective I am a fan of frequent dart board nerfs/buffs as a way to shake up the meta and keep things interesting. That applies more to PvP than PvE, but when it comes to skill/trait changes I do often enjoy change for the sake of change. New puzzles to solve, new options to examine and all that.

You can say you disagree with that philosophy of game balance changes, and both options have been proven to work with success in the past so it comes down to subjectivity again.

Oh I completely agree with pursuing new possibilities. That’s why I talk about shifting the meta forward. Nerfing FGS, in it self, was a backward shift.

I support your view on Anet’s balancing philosophy.
Still, I am convinced that the outbursts of subjective rage that took place on the forums were instrumental in directing Anet to nerf FGS.

And finally, Anet’s balancing philosophy has little to do with our problem. Remember:
What prevented innovations to spring out of our perfect competition environment?
What caused people to lock their minds onto an illusory issue?
Something must have been denaturing the way people though. What could it be?

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

And finally, Anet’s balancing philosophy has little to do with our problem. Remember:
What prevented innovations to spring out of our perfect competition environment?
What caused people to lock their minds onto an illusory issue?
Something must have been denaturing the way people though. What could it be?

If people think a problem is solved, they won’t keep trying to look for answers.

hybrid.5027:

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

And finally, Anet’s balancing philosophy has little to do with our problem. Remember:
What prevented innovations to spring out of our perfect competition environment?
What caused people to lock their minds onto an illusory issue?
Something must have been denaturing the way people though. What could it be?

If people think a problem is solved, they won’t keep trying to look for answers.

That is a pretty convenient answer

It’s the truth though? I mean, if I’m sure that I’ve found the fastest way to commute to work in the morning I’m not going to keep scouring the google maps for alternative routes. I think that’s human nature to a large extent.

Oh yes it’s the truth. You were part of the people who asked the government to ban bikes, because bikes trivialise commuting to work. Then people found a shorter path, and the time gain from the shortcut is greater than the speed loss from having to walk. So people won’t complain indeed.

Yet there are still some odd friends of yours who keep asking for more restrictions. According to them we should commute to work by walking only on one foot. Apparently walking on two feet trivialises communting.

Most people will not care. But there will always be those who will wonder why we banned bikes in the first place.

Most importantly people will want that an end is put to the process that banned bikes for no reason. This is very natural, as people like walking less than biking, and they would really dislike ending up having to walk on one foot, or even to crawl.

So yes Nike, your answer is so true, so convenient, that it sounds like an admission of guilt

Admission of guilt? guilty of what? I fully admit I got really bored of FGS. I also admit I got bored of watching bad players succeed in content they didn’t even understand because they were carried by FGS. FGS became annoying to me. So yes, when the topic came up I shared my opinion that the broken mechanic should be fixed. I’m fine that you disagree, I just don’t give a kitten . I find your arguments in favor of Fiery Rush unconvincing, shortsighted and selfish.

Here is some more information for you: I want them to nerf the lupi wall sploit. I find it offensive that kittenty pugs who don’t have a basic understanding of the fight mechanics are able to beat lupicus because of a broken, unintended mechanic. I sincerely hope for, and advocate for, it to be fixed with every patch.

As far as Ice Bow goes, I don’t have any problems whatsoever with the DPS of it, nor do I find Deep Freeze particularly overpowered. The skill is powerful but perfectly within the range of normal. In fact, if any change is done to it, it ought to be buffed and turned into an elite skill.

I hear you. One thing you apparently do not understand is that I never gave arguments in favour of FGS: I have argued against asking to nerf FGS.
This is what I blame you for.
1) the logic you apply against FGS is the same logic casuals use against zerker gear
2) your main argument is that it made fights easier for casuals, you don’t want that, and then you call me selfish … I guess you have no problem with paradoxes
3) asking for the nerf made people focus on the tool and forget other ways to innovate, which denatured competition. If you let competition run its process then we wouldn’t even have required the nerf.
4) some of your friends still follow your “logic” and ask for IB nerf, but now you are not in favour of this nerf. Please more paradoxes.
Now let me restate this in case you forget again: it is not quite the nerf but the fact of asking for it that was wrong.

After the racing and the commuting, do you need an other metaphor?

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

I hear you. One thing you apparently do not understand is that I never gave arguments in favour of FGS: I have argued against asking to nerf FGS.
This is what I blame you for.

But the fact that you blame me for “asking for it to be nerfed” is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not a nerf was justified.. I suspect if you were, say, a Ranger main or Guardian main and not an ele main that your opinion might differ. It might not, true, but I suspect you just don’t want your class nerfed even if it will be for the overall good of the game.

1) the logic you apply against FGS is the same logic casuals use against zerker gear

One logical paradigm can be correct for one instance and wrong for another. When I say Fiery Rush trivialized content I am correct. When they say Berserker gear is EZ mode stack and win etc they are wrong. Just because we use similar phraseology doesn’t mean the content of the argument has equal merit.

2) your main argument is that it made fights easier for casuals, you don’t want that, and then you call me selfish … I guess you have no problem with paradoxes

It made fights easier for everyone. My main argument is that it was one skill that did 250k damage and there is nothing remotely close to that in the rest of the game. It was way out of line, and a broken skill more than anything. It should be nerfed simply because it was so OTT. Even if it required more skill and experience to use and made the game more interesting, it should be nerfed because it was so far away from the DPS levels the rest of the game is balanced around.

4) some of your friends still follow your “logic” and ask for IB nerf, but now you are not in favour of this nerf. Please more paradoxes.

So different people having different opinions is a paradox to you? Just because I am in the same guild as colesy we are supposed to agree 100% of the time? what?

Now let me restate this in case you forget again: it is not quite the nerf but the fact of asking for it that was wrong.

No, I was asking them to fix a stupid, broken skill. I was right.

After the racing and the commuting, do you need an other metaphor?

I created those metaphors for your benefit, you’re welcome.

Question: Is wall-aiming with MS to target smaller area not consider glitching/exploiting?

ChoChoBo.6503:

Question: Is wall-aiming with MS to target smaller area not consider glitching/exploiting?

According to ANet, /shrug who knows, if you get them to talk about anything tell me how please.

According to the community and GWSCR as of now I don’t believe so.

Well no Nike, you are wrong. And you appeared to have an easier time understanding that when assimilating the concepts at hand with cars and bikes. It is alright, I will explain again.

There are three aspects to the discussion: was the skill dysfunctional, was it justified to nerf it, and was it harmless to ask for its nerf.

1) The only argument that is objective against FGS stacking is that it looked unnatural from a role play point of view.

2) The fact that it dealt abnormal damage is irrelevant: mesmer portal is the only skill allowing group teleport, which makes it abnormal, yet no one complains about it. Like you say yourself: there is always one best thing.
The fractal tournament and the new dungeon records showed unambiguously that FGS was not as effective as people like you subjectively made it appear to be.

3) Begging anet to nerf FGS made people lock their minds onto it. This killed innovation. Therefore the nerf became useful: it would unlock minds. This is exactly the broken window parable.

I main an ele, but you main a warrior. Your class was considered more optimal than mine before FGS became pervasive. Therefore I could return your argument and say that you were asking for more relative advantage for your class. But I won’t do this because I believe we are both debating ideas selflessly here, let me know if I am wrong.

Casuals ask for a change in the meta because they believe players are not taking enough damage so their defensive gear isn’t as useful as it could be. You asked for a change in the meta so that players wouldn’t deal as much damage so that your skills become comparatively more useful and players take more damage. Same logic, same mistake.

let us turn this topic in a more friendly area.

who wants a cookie?

Jerus.4350:

According to ANet, /shrug who knows, if you get them to talk about anything tell me how please.

According to the community and GWSCR as of now I don’t believe so.

Kewls, tbh, I’ve used it a few times. Just hope i don’t get banned for it :p

Minigrump.4961:

let us turn this topic in a more friendly area.

who wants a cookie?

*notsureificantrustyou

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

1) The only argument that is objective against FGS stacking is that it looked unnatural from a role play point of view.

Actually the main argument is that the skill was being used for a purpose the developers did not intend, and that use was an over the top amount of DPS. You are creating a strawman. I didn’t object to Fiery Rush for roleplaying purposes, so suggesting something of that nature is a logical fallacy. Though, as we’ll see logical gaps are your strong suit, or weak suit if you prefer.

2) The fact that it dealt abnormal damage is irrelevant: mesmer portal is the only skill allowing group teleport, which makes it abnormal, yet no one complains about it. Like you say yourself: there is always one best thing.
The fractal tournament and the new dungeon records showed unambiguously that FGS was not as effective as people like you subjectively made it appear to be.

Not irrelevant at all. The game was designed with an idea of how much DPS a group should be able to create. Bosses were given HP pools and balanced around how much DPS a group could theoretically produce. When you take the numbers the game was designed around and multiply them by four, it becomes a major design flaw. You say its irrelevant, but clearly you’re wrong: the devs said it was relevant. When the devs comment about their intentions that ends the dispute about intentions, period.

Portal? What does that have to do with FGS? Portal is, by all accounts, working as intended. FGS, by developer statements, was not. You’re creating a false equivilancy. More fallacious thinking.

The new dungeon records also say nothing, the more I think about it. Everyone who has ever done a record knows that the boss fights are trivial and what matters is how fast you move through the dungeon. Not LOSing a boss like Spider Queen is a time savings because the time she takes to come to your stack spot is a real consideration. However, records may be faster now, but they would be even faster if FGS wasn’t nerfed. There are still plenty of bosses that would be faster to kill with FGS. What we would likely see is even faster records with some bosses killed where they spawn and others quickly fiery rushed when that is optimal.

The only people who expected FGS to dominate the fractal tournament was, no offense, rT. I tried to tell them not to run that comp, but I respected their agency to make their own decisions, however bad they were.

3) Begging anet to nerf FGS made people lock their minds onto it. This killed innovation. Therefore the nerf became useful: it would unlock minds. This is exactly the broken window parable.

What an insult to LuPi, Snow Crows, Intricacy, vS etc. You’re saying because I made a couple of forum posts saying Fiery Rush is over the top these guilds chose to stop thinking? Maybe I should be flattered that you think I’m so influential.

I main an ele, but you main a warrior. Your class was considered more optimal than mine before FGS became pervasive. Therefore I could return your argument and say that you were asking for more relative advantage for your class. But I won’t do this because I believe we are both debating ideas selflessly here, let me know if I am wrong.

I understood that even if FGS was nerfed to oblivion that it wouldn’t change warrior’s position one iota. Ele’s are omnipresent due to Persisting Flames, a fact you know very well, I assumed at least. Before Persisting Flames, groups needed a source of Fury and Might and multiple warriors could do that. Once persisting flames was changed to give Fury it made it much easier to keep 100% Fury uptime and stack Might. Even if Ice Bow gets nerfed Ele and warrior will stay where they are in the meta. I thought you knew this. Since it was an impossibility that warrior’s position was improved by nerfing FGS your accusation against me is incorrect. However, my hunch about you still stands. You are so defensive, make such irrational and silly arguments that I can only conclude you are overly emotionally connected to this because your class got its easy button nerfed.

Casuals ask for a change in the meta because they believe players are not taking enough damage so their defensive gear isn’t as useful as it could be. You asked for a change in the meta so that players wouldn’t deal as much damage so that your skills become comparatively more useful and players take more damage. Same logic, same mistake.

More strawmen and false equivilance. I don’t want you to “take more damage.” I want you to have to “avoid more damage.” This is a big distinction. Taking more damage = no skill, no reactions, passive game play. Avoid more damage = use skills, use tactics, use reactions. Clearly a big difference. One promotes passive gameplay, one promotes active gameplay. You love a strawman argument.

Nike, you need to try to understand the points that are being made before replying, otherwise I have to repeat again. Meanwhile you call me selfish, silly, as well as other off topic signs of lack of respect and lack of understanding. I would rather you did not use your usual manipulative language here so that the discussion remains constructive. Thank you.

Let’s explain again.
1) The only objective argument against FGS is that is looks unnatural. I did not say that this is your argument. I am saying it is the only objective one.

2) Portal does abnormal transportation while FGS did abnormal damage. Everything else being equal, this is the comparison I am making. I am sure you are capable of understand this.
Anet’s intentions are the most irrelevant matter here. You really cannot resort to this to justify your misguided actions. Such argument would make you support the removal of fotm 50+ and TA-F/U , which I really hope you do not…
Now you are saying that bosses are trivial, with or without FGS. I agree. But this really goes against your point that nerfing FGS makes fights more interesting. If anything, now that we can see that using FGS is a gambit (oh surprise!) then allowing such gambit would make runs more interesting (everything else being equal of course). Finally you are now admitting that your opinion during the fractal tournament was that FGS is not that optimal! Please stick to one opinion

3) Yes you are influential. Therefore when you call for the wrong action the community suffers. I would not be arguing with you if you were not both influential and wrong. Also this kind of discussion help the community to understand the matters at hand; and therefore I hope people would be able to better fend off the misguided claims of your friends, using your logic, to call for more destructive nerfs.

Persisting flames. Yes sure. We definitely require 1 minute of fury to kill bosses in 10 seconds.

Avoiding more damage = use more reaction, yes. Taking more damage = using reactive abilities such as heals, the argument of the casuals. While I support active gameplay, I cannot help but noticing the similarities: you want the player to be more exposed.

Finally, you need to understand that I never argued in favour of FGS. I did not like the skill. But what I hated more than the skill was that the community, mislead by a few, focused on it and locked their minds in the propaganda box. My belief is that other mechanical changes are far more important, and these are still left to be seen; and that denaturing the competition-innovation process is destructive. Anybody with a long term view on this game would understand this.

Great kill! Very well done.

I can’t be the only one who’s more interested in watching Nike and Zelyhn argue than the thread topic.

But, kudos. I find Belka to be cancerous, since she orbs me in the face and her stupid knockback doesn’t help my case. Maybe I’m just bad. *shrug*

Actual on topic comment passing through
Nice solo Fennec, very smooth

Lindbur.2537:

I can’t be the only one who’s more interested in watching Nike and Zelyhn argue than the thread topic.

But, kudos. I find Belka to be cancerous, since she orbs me in the face and her stupid knockback doesn’t help my case. Maybe I’m just bad. shrug

Agree on both points, I logged in with the intention of playing last night, coulnd’t think what I actually wanted to do, thought “ohh hey i’ll go have some fun with my big ol’ friend Lupi” then I remembered I’d have to go through belka to get there and logged out

Lindbur.2537:

I can’t be the only one who’s more interested in watching Nike and Zelyhn argue than the thread topic.

TBH, after adding this thread to my favorites and giving it 100 views as I read the discussion between the two, I felt obligated to post and acknowledge it’s original intent.

Lindbur.2537:

I can’t be the only one who’s more interested in watching Nike and Zelyhn argue than the thread topic.

…

Definitely agree. Hearing those 2 debate is a really good read.

You guys should tone down on the half hearted insults. This is a really good conversation you guys are having.

Yus.

Tom Yzf.5872:

Definitely agree. Hearing those 2 debate is a really good read.

You guys should tone down on the half hearted insults. This is a really good conversation you guys are having.

It looks like Nike lost his will to debate.

Either my arguments are too compelling and he cannot bear to admit being imperfect, or he cannot go on debating without resorting to full hearted insults – we have history, I know what I am talking about.

That is a shame, because I really felt like we could talk for once, and this does not happen often.

I’m in the mood for some pointless arguing. What’s the topic?

Heitred is alive.
Merry christmas.
Will guang come back?
All is vain.

We can’t have nice things in here.

We had a nice debate!

It’s gone now though

Is this guy for real?

Are you real or a phantasm?