Guild Wars 2

Hello GW2 PvP Forum,

New Patch Callout at the bottom for your viewing pleasure.

I have been away from this game for a while and have only been keeping up with the game through the forums and will come back to this game in next week’s patch to put together a team and sign up for any tournaments.

I have come to the realization that all that we can control and do as players of this or any other competitive game is to look for advantages, overcome disadvantages, and to win or lose the games we play. I am directing this post to all class balance QQers, GvG scrubs, new gamemode QQers, and anybody who, like I have been in this game before, someone low or medium ranked who thinks they know what they’re talking about.

There are no style points for running a “high skill cap” build. You don’t get a handicap of 100 points for running hard builds. You don’t get anything for running inferior builds, no matter how risk / reward they are. Nobody cares if you do that if you lose, and make no mistake, if you run something suboptimal that is harder to run than an easy and effective build you will lose more than you win.

I highly recommend reading “Playing to Win” by David Sirlin, which is free to read on sirlin.net. You will probably get mad if you read this and you are not winning consistently against skilled players, ranked highly in solo queue or tPvP, etc. I sure as hell did. I had to realize that I was, in fact, objectively, without a shadow of a doubt a scrub.

Scrubs make mental obstacles for themselves through any number of imaginary rules and “ethics” in a constructed reality that does not reward that behavior in any way unless it allows them to win consistently over the majority of their opponents. The book goes over the advantages of winning in more detail, but the short way to say it is, if you’re not winning you’ll never have as much fun or appreciate a game for what it truly is.

Class balance is not your problem. It is Arenanet’s problem. They have to decide what is good or bad for the game and all they are ever going to do is take your opinions into whatever degree of consideration they feel is appropriate. You can complain all you want about stunlock warriors, condispam necros, afk2win rangers, and every other “OP” crap under the sun.

It doesn’t matter.

Game modes are also not your problem. If you don’t like conquest, and don’t want to compete in the game mode then what do you play this game’s PvP for? You obviously want to play it or you wouldn’t post on this forum or go to Heart of the Mists. You can also complain about “sPvE,” it’s “boring,” it’s “not fun,” it’s “cheesy,” blah blah blah.

It doesn’t matter.

All that matters, and all that ever will matter in a competitive game is who wins and who loses. If you want to appreciate PvP in Guild Wars 2, World of Warcraft, SWTOR, Dota, League of Legends, or any competitive game for what it really is then you have to win. Until then, you are just a scrub.

Do you want to be a scrub?

I sure as hell don’t.

I’ll see you all in game on Tuesday. Until then, ask yourself if you want to win in this game or just be some whiny scrub who tries to tell people who built a gaming experience from the ground up how to handle itself.

TLDR: Quit whining, start winning, enjoy the game, laugh at the scrubs once you evolve past their pathetic existence.

New Patch Update:

This is the most hilarious reaction to a patch I’ve seen in a long time. You guys are really taking the cake on how to do a textbook version of asinine freakouts.

I mean, immob stacking and the NERF PLOX not being caved in to by Anet has your emotional entitlement to what you want cranked up to 11 out of 10.

Get a grip, grab a big drink of cold water, pour it on your face, sit in a corner and stare at the wall until you figure out how pathetic you’ve been acting.

Once you’ve realized that you have been acting you need diapers and a bib, get over it, and move on, you start objectively working on a way to take advantage of immob stacking, prevent it from being done to you, and start asking yourself decision making based questions while you practice or do hotjoins.

Can I 1v1 a Warrior? If not, then why am I trying to? Wouldn’t it make more sense to kill his teammates while he stands on the point with his banner?

Can I break out of immobs? If not, why am I begging to be put in a position where I can’t dodge?

Dunning Kruger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I know the meta will change sooner or later but what gets me really mad are players in tournaments who do not quite know what they are doing and who are rejecting every tip and playstyle improvement you give them at the same time.

Yup that’s a pretty good description of what I had been under the illusion of. In retrospect I was pretty bad at this game and actually believed that I was good to a fault.

I wasn’t even decent… and it’s embarrassing. I’m glad I recognize that now and I can start being more objective about how I play instead of whatever the hell I was before.

jmatb.6307:

Yup that’s a pretty good description of what I had been under the illusion of. In retrospect I was pretty bad at this game and actually believed that I was good to a fault.

I wasn’t even decent… and it’s embarrassing. I’m glad I recognize that now and I can start being more objective about how I play instead of whatever the hell I was before.

That’s great, but being “skilled” isn’t just a frame of mind.
It will take tons of practice and learning (and there are proven methods that help with that).

Of course, and when I come back I will dedicate practice things that work instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.

All that matters, and all that ever will matter in a competitive game is who wins and who loses.

Why don’t we all just play tic tac toe then?

If you want to go ahead who cares? lol

Master of Timespace.2548:

All that matters, and all that ever will matter in a competitive game is who wins and who loses.

Why don’t we all just play tic tac toe then?

Nobody ever wins at TicTacToe. Always ends up in a draw.

Flamfloz.6732:

Master of Timespace.2548:

All that matters, and all that ever will matter in a competitive game is who wins and who loses.

Why don’t we all just play tic tac toe then?

Nobody ever wins at TicTacToe. Always ends up in a draw.

OK. Then we could play rock paper scissors.

If you want to go ahead who cares? lol

I didn’t believe I’d have to elborate. In your post you seem to suggest that it doesn’t matter if the game is fun, balanced or interesting. All that matters is that who wins. But if that’s true, then why even bother with gw2 when you could just play a competitive game of rps?

Class balance is not your problem. It is Arenanet’s problem. They have to decide what is good or bad for the game and all they are ever going to do is take your opinions into whatever degree of consideration they feel is appropriate. You can complain all you want about stunlock warriors, condispam necros, afk2win rangers, and every other “OP” crap under the sun.

It doesn’t matter.

But of course it matters. The game is not interesting or fun if it’s not balanced.

Do realise that lots of people play this game because they want to have fun. Relatively complex, balanced fights are fun. Winning is fun. But winning with cheese spec is only as fun as trolling, in my opinion anyway.

Balance is subjective. Winning is not.

You’re bringing up obstacles. “Interesting” or “fun” are synonyms of winning and antonyms of losing.

Would anyone want to read a book about someone who loses a bunch of games and complains about it, or have fun reading it?

Also, I guess I could add that aesthetics and cool pixels make a difference in how much you would enjoy a competitive game. I didn’t think I had to elaborate that.

jmatb.6307:

Also, I guess I could add that aesthetics and cool pixels make a difference in how much you would enjoy a competitive game. I didn’t think I had to elaborate that.

It’s not aesthetics. It’s the rules. If the rules are bad (eg. bad balance, too simple, relies too much on luck, boring point cap!, etc.), then the game is not interesting.

Would anyone want to read a book about someone who loses a bunch of games and complains about it, or have fun reading it?

A realistic, rough story about a loser would probably sell better than a corny fairytale about superstar and sunshine, aye.

LOL ANOTHER fAIL qq

Well then it’s more likely that you will lose than you win timespace

And that book would make good TP for me

/shrug

Also luck is entirely nonexistent. Nobody who wins in a constructed reality does so by divine intervention or random chance….

The reason this is virtually meaningless is simple… Retention.

Winning is certainly everything but what happens when people no longer want to play? You have a ‘dead’ game. Not saying this game is dead, but I think you get the point.

If players don’t want to play, then eventually everyone loses, for you can’t win if there isn’t a game…

Still, bravo. You actually got me to post about a game I no longer play!

Haha cool

I hear you on people not wanting to play anymore I was one of them, but at the end of the day I love dodge rolls, and how unique the game is vs. other types of games.

I don’t think Anet is gonna stop working on PvP regardless of who quits. Those teams may or may not come back, but it’s w/e

Well, when I opened thread with words “THE TRUTH”, i was ready for a wall of silly text written by young boy.

I highly recommend reading “Playing to Win” by David Sirlin

“Interesting” or “fun” are synonyms of winning and antonyms of losing.

No thank you. People play games because they enjoy the process, not to just win.
I, for example, enjoy playing with skilled players, even if I lose. I also don’t like playing easy builds. It’s just boring. I do not talk about builds which are both easy and effective. But when builds like that exist, it’s very, very bad for game. It’s very depressing to play against people which are using such builds, just because they can win with minimum efforts. Actually, i won most of that fights, but even when people just facerolled onto their keyboards pressing something like 1234567890 that was pretty hurt. It’s depressing. Since those builds became popular, I couldn’t enjoy playing this game anymore. And I’m sure I’m not alone.

If the only thing you need is winning, then you need to grow up.

Winners are true sociopaths ^^

CutePicsHunter.7430:

No thank you. People play games because they enjoy the process, not to just win.
I, for example, enjoy playing with skilled players, even if I lose. I also don’t like playing easy builds. It’s just boring. I do not talk about builds which are both easy and effective. But when builds like that exist, it’s very, very bad for game. It’s very depressing to play against people which are using such builds, just because they can win with minimum efforts. Actually, i won most of that fights, but even when people just facerolled onto their keyboards pressing something like 1234567890 that was pretty hurt. It’s depressing. Since those builds became popular, I couldn’t enjoy playing this game anymore. And I’m sure I’m not alone.

If the only thing you need is winning, then you need to grow up.

Agreed with this.

Well then it’s more likely that you will lose than you win timespace

And that book would make good TP for me

/shrug

Also luck is entirely nonexistent. Nobody who wins in a constructed reality does so by divine intervention or random chance….

This makes no sense given the context of my second post. I don’t think it’s possible to have a rational discussion with you.

“It’s not aesthetics. It’s the rules. If the rules are bad (eg. bad balance, too simple, relies too much on luck, boring point cap!, etc.), then the game is not interesting.”

That’s what I was responding to, your most recent post Timespace

@Cutepics

Cool story, have fun losing against better builds and players. Personal shots being fired looks like projection and makes you look like, dare I say in response, a little girl.

Skill is subjective. Winning is not.

@ Merlin

Winners get “in the zone”, which can be defined as detaching yourself from that which creates losing. Does that make you a sociopath? Not at all, nobody says you have to be that way outside of the game lol

Edit:

I’ll add that these kinds of responses are what I mean. What defines skill objectively, in a way you can measure? Winning. Anybody can say they’re skilled. I thought I was skilled. I wasn’t winning so there was a clear objective proof in my face that I was not.

Also, I don’t need to win to enjoy the game but I see the appeal in doing so and find it more worthwhile than trying to prove to myself or others that I am “skilled.” What’s the point?

It is just a game. If it isn’t fun or rewarding for you to play then you really shouldn’t be playing it. I get frustrated by what seems like obvious laps in judgement by the devs but it’s a passing feeling. Go off and through superior play beat the FOTM rollers and smile

jmatb.6307:

Skill is subjective. Winning is not.

The fact that skill is subjective doesn’t mean that skill is not real, son.

jmatb.6307:

Cool story, have fun losing against better builds and players. Personal shots being fired looks like projection and makes you look like, dare I say in response, a little girl.

Personal shots was fired in your very first post, where you called all people which don’t agree with you scrubs. You called scrub yourself too, but that doesn’t means anything in the present. Your post looks like recruitment into the sect.
“Long time ago I was a scrub, but then i read that awesome book, now anyone who doesn’t agree with me is scrub.”
So, your answer is “cool story”, and that only means that you don’t have any arguments.

trololol

I never said anything about the maturity or out of game identity of the scrub. I’m just saying that anyone who makes up reasons why they can’t win in this game is defined as such, in game. Personal = out of game. Scrub has nothing to do with your real life, although it’s possible it could.

Cool story is applied to your all star team that won the last two tournaments. Good job on those wins vs. all those teams by the way.

All I’m saying is you might want to look in the mirror to find the source of your stress in this game and stop pointing the finger at the devs for not making you feel good about how you play vs. stronger builds and better players.

Again, it’s not your responsibility to care about what’s “balanced” or “fair” or “just” in a game where all you can control is whether you win or lose.

jmatb.6307:

I never said anything about the maturity or out of game identity of the scrub. I’m just saying that anyone who makes up reasons why they can’t win in this game is defined as such, in game. Personal = out of game. Scrub has nothing to do with your real life, although it’s possible it could.

Cool story is applied to your all star team that won the last two tournaments. Good job on those wins vs. all those teams by the way.

It’s not about “why we can’t win”. It’s all about “why we don’t want to play”. I can win and i usually win, especially when i’m not playing with some of my friends, which are good friends but bad players. I don’t care about the fact that I lost like 80% games when I played with them, because we mostly played against pretty skilled players. But after x-spam-meta came, they dropped the game.

I’m pointint the finger at the devs because there are some reasons why I’m doing it, I guess. It’s not just balance, they made this game less enjoyable, less watchable, and easier. We still have only one mode, we still have broken leaderboards, sometimes they fix bugs only after 5-8 months after they’ve been found. This list is pretty big, you know.

jmatb.6307:

All I’m saying is you might want to look in the mirror to find the source of your stress in this game and stop pointing the finger at the devs for not making you feel good about how you play vs. stronger builds and better players.

Again, it’s not your responsibility to care about what’s “balanced” or “fair” or “just” in a game where all you can control is whether you win or lose.

I can’t find the source of my stress in this game in the mirror, just because the source of any stress is always not inside of people. No game → no stress, it’s easy. Source of stress is all about discrepancy between the reality and the desired. My desires will not change just because someone will say “winning is fun”, while reality may be changed if I and those who agree with me will put some efforts into it.

Also, where did you find that information about my tournament games? I don’t even remember last of them.

Haha that wasn’t your team that beat SYNC? I was kidding

See, you’re already opening up. You want the game to be different, but can’t control that. Nobody who isn’t in Seattle, Washington in that studio can change that. I let it go and it feels good.

This isn’t an open-source game. I realize there are problems, but they are Arenanet’s problems to fix. The only problems we have is whether or not we want to play the game and whether we want to win. It’s a lot more simple than what many people on this forum make it out to be, and I made it out to be in the past.

I’d rather work toward that tangible and objective goal than be miserable between patches hoping that the “balance” and “fairness” comes back, if it was ever there to begin with.

jmatb.6307:

See, you’re already opening up.
I let it go and it feels good.
It’s a lot more simple than what many people on this forum make it out to be, and I made it out to be.

Generic sect speech, ha-ha.

jmatb.6307:

You want the game to be different, but can’t control that. Nobody who isn’t in Seattle, Washington in that studio can change that.

No, I can control it. People can control it. And we already changed something, so Anet decided to buff a bunch of support skills.

jmatb.6307:

The only problems we have is whether or not we want to play the game and whether we want to win.

No, it’s exactly the opposite.
The question is: do we want to play the game, so there will be winners and losers? My answer, for now, is no, i don’t want to play. If you like to play, then it’s obvious that at one point you will become more skillful than average player, and you will start to win. Yes, winning is good, it’s a signal that your skill improves. When you feel that your skill is high and you’re doing right things in right time, it’s just awesome, no matter if you lose. But when you fight using easy and effective build requiring minimum efforts against the people with same easy builds everywhere, this feel will never come. I played a lot of shooters and MOBA, so I know what I’m talking about.

jmatb.6307:

I’d rather work toward that tangible and objective goal than be miserable between patches hoping that the “balance” and “fairness” comes back, if it was ever there to begin with.

So, you don’t need much, but that doesn’t apply to all people, and you should realize it.

Control isn’t the right word – influenced is more like it. Anet feels that some of the suggestions are worthwhile and have responded in the way they saw fit.

I’ll see how I feel about whether or not strong, simple builds do the trick once I climb out of the craphole I put myself into rank wise.

Of course, winning and working toward objective goals don’t apply to all people. There have to be people for the winners to beat right?

I just read the whole thing and in my opinion OP you didn’t understand it all….

He does not define a scrub as someone who is unwilling to resort to fotm builds, exploiting bugs/broken skills as your posting here would lead people to believe. They are merely players who have not yet made the leap from “hitting buttons to have fun” to “hitting buttons with strategic intent”.

He does not promote using broken skills/mechanics/etc. but explains that a competitive player “playing to win” in a competitive game will consider all tools available to him and use what gives him the best chance to win – that is not equivalent to using the easy mode build as he explains a good player will know how to counter or adapt in the coarse of the fight to counter. He later states that commonly the best players are the ones using unorthodox or even the commonly perceived “weakest” classes because they see potential and value where others merely adopt whatever is considered to be the strongest and that those players largely do not reside in the top tier of that game.

At no point did I take his meaning of “Playing to Win” as the “only way to have fun in a competitive game” but rather when playing a competitive game (and actually playing it competitively) winning is the goal – by which the purpose of the book is to explain rudimentary strategy and thought processes to better enable players to that end.

It’s not nearly as divisive or inflammatory or ill-spirited as you make it out to be. Quite the opposite in fact.

If anyone is interested in learning more about, or getting a refresher in, strategy and the mental processes important to devising winning strategies/play-styles, I’d say it’s worth a read. Not very long either.

edit: now that I think about it though, my question to the community at large would be “is GW2 in fact competitive and is it even worth worrying about winning?”

The scrub part talks about how people make imaginary barriers for themselves. There’s a whole paragraph dedicated to it. Like you said, winners use all the tools available and denying yourself tools based on things like “fair” or “balanced” are creating barriers that make it difficult to get out of that self-designed mental prison.

I’m not saying that I’m going to run FOTM builds or that they are required for winning, because I don’t know if they are yet. I haven’t been in the game for a while. I just know that when people complain about something on the forum, I’m going to load it up and see for myself how strong it is. If people complain about something, I’m pretty sure they’re losing to it

I take it a bit extreme on how I interpret it for the winning part, I’ll give you that. I just see the goal as being much, much more appealing than my previous experience in this game where I was angry almost every time I logged on for pretty stupid “reasons.”

If I’m winning, then I get to compete with higher quality opponents and can objectively see that I am, in fact, good or great. If I’m not, then I simply don’t have what it takes and need to change

hackks.3687:

I just read the whole thing and in my opinion OP you didn’t understand it all….

He does not define a scrub as someone who is unwilling to resort to fotm builds, exploiting bugs/broken skills as your posting here would lead people to believe. They are merely players who have not yet made the leap from “hitting buttons to have fun” to “hitting buttons with strategic intent”.

He does not promote using broken skills/mechanics/etc. but explains that a competitive player “playing to win” in a competitive game will consider all tools available to him and use what gives him the best chance to win – that is not equivalent to using the easy mode build as he explains a good player will know how to counter or adapt in the coarse of the fight to counter. He later states that commonly the best players are the ones using unorthodox or even the commonly perceived “weakest” classes because they see potential and value where others merely adopt whatever is considered to be the strongest and that those players largely do not reside in the top tier of that game.

At no point did I take his meaning of “Playing to Win” as the “only way to have fun in a competitive game” but rather when playing a competitive game (and actually playing it competitively) winning is the goal – by which the purpose of the book is to explain rudimentary strategy and thought processes to better enable players to that end.

It’s not nearly as divisive or inflammatory or ill-spirited as you make it out to be. Quite the opposite in fact.

If anyone is interested in learning more about, or getting a refresher in, strategy and the mental processes important to devising winning strategies/play-styles, I’d say it’s worth a read. Not very long either.

edit: now that I think about it though, my question to the community at large would be “is GW2 in fact competitive and is it even worth worrying about winning?”

+1

To OP, its clear that you need all the broken/cheese/bugs on your side in order to win, or to give yourself the impression that you are winning. So regardless of your score at the end of the game, you are still a scrub.

It was a good read, and I highly reccomend it to people having a hard time in competitive games. The biggest mistake people make is they play the game as their characters. They play within the confines of the aesthetics of the game, the setting, etc. You have to remove all of the surface flair of it and calculate your moves based on hard numbers, game mechanics, interaction with environment, I could spend an entire thread listing everything involved.

I will admit, sometimes not immersing yourself in the game’s world (the art of the world) can get boring, or stale, but winning is never boring or stale. Maybe you don’t want to play the game at breakneck speeds constantly, and want to take a mental break and just enjoy the scenery.

Thats when its time to PvE.

You’re seeing what you want to see. I never said anything about what I’m running.

I’m just saying whining and complaining and kittening and moaning about everything you’re getting beat by is irrelevant.

jmatb.6307:

You’re seeing what you want to see. I never said anything about what I’m running.

I’m just saying whining and complaining and kittening and moaning about everything you’re getting beat by is irrelevant.

So you’re basically saying, “Deal with it.”

That’s fine, but telling people not to complain is like trying to stop the sun from rising.

Subtlety is fun.

The classical definition of rhetoric in Ancient Greece included logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos = logical argument. Ethos = moral relevance. Pathos = emotional engagement.

I want to make people mad reading my post. If I just recommend the book and make a boring interpretation of it nobody would care and my goal, which I will let people try to figure out for themselves, will not have been accomplished.

The post is working well

jmatb.6307:

I want to make people mad reading my post. If I just recommend the book and make a boring interpretation of it nobody would care and my goal, which I will let people try to figure out for themselves, will not have been accomplished.

The post is working well

this was my suspicion but I’m fairly certain it’s having the opposite effect you’d want it to have. Rather than disillusion you’re merely turning people off to your new found enlightenment and discrediting the whole notion in the process.

jmatb.6307:

Subtlety is fun.

The classical definition of rhetoric in Ancient Greece included logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos = logical argument. Ethos = moral relevance. Pathos = emotional engagement.

I want to make people mad reading my post. If I just recommend the book and make a boring interpretation of it nobody would care and my goal, which I will let people try to figure out for themselves, will not have been accomplished.

The post is working well

Perhaps the community would be more inclined to listen if you didn’t try to troll them. Now you just look like a jagoff.

Trolling is different then engaging emotions. I’m not bringing unconstructive, distracting, or irrelevant crap to the forum that doesn’t serve a purpose.

You two are mad again but trust me you won’t forget that book any time soon.

jmatb.6307:

Trolling is different then engaging emotions. I’m not bringing unconstructive, distracting, or irrelevant crap to the forum that doesn’t serve a purpose.

You two are mad again but trust me you won’t forget that book any time soon.

For the record, you didn’t bring the book to our attention, we only joined the conversation to clarify the misconceptions you’ve been trying to spread around regarding the message of the book.

Misconceptions? Everything I’ve said about the book is an interpretation of it.

Read the scrub section again lol

“He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.”

Is that the kind of “not nearly as divisive or inflammatory or ill-spirited” happiness and sunshine pep talk hackz was referring to? How about “This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub.” or “Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary.”

That’s the section that you guys need to read over and over.

Also here’s a diff quote from whoever said it, “The truth will set you free – but at first it will kitten you off!”

You’re cherry picking your quotes and using them out of context.

The first section of the article describes everything in the context of Fighting games. A lot of the core of what he has to say applies to all competitive games, but his examples are specifically for Fighting games like Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, etc.

Here’s a good quote, “…But there is a limit. There is a point when the bug becomes too much. In tournaments, bugs that turn the game off, or freeze it indefinitely, or remove one of the characters from the playfield permanently are banned. Bugs so extreme that they stop gameplay are considered unfair even by non-scrubs…”

or

“…It’s extreme examples like this that even amongst the top players, and even something that isn’t a bug, but was put in on purpose by the game designers, the community as a whole has unanimously decided to make the rule: “don’t play Akuma in serious matches…”

jmatb.6307:

Trolling is different then engaging emotions. I’m not bringing unconstructive, distracting, or irrelevant crap to the forum that doesn’t serve a purpose.

You two are mad again but trust me you won’t forget that book any time soon.

who’s mad? I was simply attempting some damage control on your well intended but poorly executed lesson.

none of the content in that “book” was new to me, and I was already familiar with the author as I had read the article that preceded the book well before GW2 was even released.

I don’t (and would never) fault you for trying to teach or share what you’ve learned. I’m just pointing out that your methods leave plenty to be desired.

for all your post’s faults, you’re still right. there are a lot of GW2 players/posters who could learn quite a bit from that short read and benefit significantly.

@Hammerheart

Cherry picking? Good lord the irony.

What bugs make the game unplayable to the point where you have no chance to win vs. that team? As in 100% loss rate where there is literally nothing you can do to win? Can you prove that it’s possible to hack the game and force D/Cs on people?

Has the community enacted rules that made it into tournaments? Do these teams agree before a tournament that we’re not running spirit ranger, CC warrior, etc.?

No?

The scrub section is a crystal clear definition of people who think they’re good but aren’t and build a mental prison that prevents them from becoming so. Reevz pointed out a scientific theory that explains this.

You are apparently looking for something to justify that Anet is out to get you and anyone else who wants a “perfectly balanced game,” and seem to believe that the message from the scrub section isn’t a wake up call.

The attitude behind your choice of quotes is textbook, almost word for word scrubbery. Sure, he said them, but I guarantee you in this context that guy would be /facepalming looking at how you used them.

It’s simple – unless you figure out a way to hack the game, screw up opponents’ internet connections, or some other gamebreaking situation that makes it impossible for the other team to win, then it’s fair game.

Interestingly enough, I thought Sirlin’s opinions regarding what constitutes proper depth of counter-play and any lack there of being the fault of the game makers was rather intriguing. I know he says those bugs and whatnot are not off-limits to players until the game makers or tournament hosts deem it as such, but he also says that too much of it being present is a result of poor/bad game design and that the game is likely just a “bad game”. Which, to me, would seem to put GW2 in a rather condemned state at the moment.

Which is why I added the question in the edit of my earlier post. Given the state of PvP, it’s leader boards and matchmaking system, and lack of a community/following could anyone still consider GW2 to actually be a “competitive” game?

What I mean is, in order to care about winning the results need to be credible, right? Could anyone say that losing a match 4v5 lends credibility to either side’s result? And if credibility of results can so easily be thrown into question then obviously so can the leaderboards and matchmaking system be put to the same scrutiny. So at the end of the day if the entire competitive PvP structure of ranking/rating and the accuracy of win/loss ratios can be so easily thrown into question, then why even care about winning? And if you’re not sure whether winning/losing really matters, then is the game still competitive?

It doesn’t really feel like it at the moment… at least not to me.

I’ll resort to every dirty trick I can think of to win, I win most of the team fights and 1v1-2v1s and pick and choose when to engage, if you can’t win might as well make it a stalemate. It sucks but it’s not reasonable to expect a thief to just stand at my feet and let me kill him when the fight doesn’t go his way. People will run w/e they want and find a way to make it work if not they adjust.

But in the end the game needs to be fixed and balanced. Yes it’s A-nets job, but it’s been so long with little development is it unreasonable for people to get upset when players invested time and the community was more or less promised it? I think the QQ is more for change for a developing meta instead of stagnation and I don’t think that’s entirely unreasonable.

jmatb.6307:

I want to make people mad reading my post.

Well, aren’t you a jester!

+1 to CutePicsHunter and hackks, quality replies.

And yea, OP, I guess top teams have been quitting GW2 because they were failing to win.

“Winners get “in the zone”, which can be defined as detaching yourself from that which creates losing. Does that make you a sociopath? Not at all, nobody says you have to be that way outside of the game lol”

True, but most winners i had on my team were true sociaopaths (usually the ragequitters, people who get really angry at the team for losing) also distancing themself from the real world trough extensive gaming alters a character molded by a competative state of mind thus creating a person without, or less developed empathy.
thus the road to becoming a sociopath is opened.
note: been managing a gaming cafe/team for a long time and the characters i see in top competition is mostly egocentric sociopaths whil think watching pwned video’s for entertainment.

A good example of a sociaopath is that one mesmer doing those video’s and competing in pax..

maybe im just getting old ^^

jmatb.6307:

Of course, winning and working toward objective goals don’t apply to all people. There have to be people for the winners to beat right?

The fact is that you’re trying urge people that you’re right, while you’re not.

The difference between us is that I get a lot more fun by winning than you, and not only because the whole game were interesting for me since I played using interesting build. Well, usually, those who just use fotm build lose to those who experiment with different builds, just because they have much less experience.

As i said before, if something is not objective – it doesn’t mean that it’s not real, and you, son, should realize it. I will always get more fun than you and it doesn’t mean that you will win more games than me. Calm down and stop getting mad, bro.

Also, read this:

And yea, OP, I guess top teams have been quitting GW2 because they were failing to win.

Dat scrubs.

@Karla

They left for their reasons. So did I. It happens.

@ Cutepics

I’m not mad you are lol. Skill is best measured objectively or it can be imagined /shrug

@ shimmer

We aren’t devs. The way I see it the energy spent whining and complaining and kittening and moaning about every little problem under the sun can be spent getting better at the 98% of the game that does work…

You are not wrong, OP, but you are also not exclusively correct. Different people can play the same game for different reasons. This is not GW2 related but it has applicability here:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Its not a perfect analogy but it becomes evident that player types or “psychographic profiles” are useful to answer the question “why do people play a game?” and “what is fun?”.

I perceive you have embraced your inner Spike in GW2 and that is perfectly fine. Winning is fun and winning all the time is more so. I’m sure you can be happy playing and playing against meta builds and classes while honing your skill at the game while not worrying about the development side of the game. And its all good.

However, you cant expect everyone to be a Spike or convert to becoming one. In order to have a successful game that thrives and grows the developers must find out who GW2’s Timmy, Jhonny and Spike are and how to cater to them. There is also what others have said before me that there needs to be balance in order to maintain a skillful, fair game.

Lowest Animal.8014:

You are not wrong, OP, but you are also not exclusively correct. Different people can play the same game for different reasons. This is not GW2 related but it has applicability here:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Its not a perfect analogy but it becomes evident that player types or “psychographic profiles” are useful to answer the question “why do people play a game?” and “what is fun?”.

I perceive you have embraced your inner Spike in GW2 and that is perfectly fine. Winning is fun and winning all the time is more so. I’m sure you can be happy playing and playing against meta builds and classes while honing your skill at the game while not worrying about the development side of the game. And its all good.

However, you cant expect everyone to be a Spike or convert to becoming one. In order to have a successful game that thrives and grows the developers must find out who GW2’s Timmy, Jhonny and Spike are and how to cater to them. There is also what others have said before me that there needs to be balance in order to maintain a skillful, fair game.

I don’t expect people to all be uniform. I knew when I posted that there were going to be plenty of people who take issue with it, vent their frustrations, and potentially look at the text seeking answers.

Ya what you’re saying makes a lot of sense. Personality tests and evaluations are how well-run organizations ascertain where people are best deployed. Maybe Anet has some kind of system like that in their development iteration process I don’t know.

But it’s one thing to vent, whine, complain, kitten, and waste time and energy trying to fix something out of your hands and it’s another to offer constructive feedback you know what I mean?

http://cdn.meme.li/i/mbthy.jpg