Shouldn’t this be in the Discussion forum?
I agree, as PvE EU guild it’s highly annoying to search trough all possible posts only to find out they’re not into PvE or from NA
The BvB that people have started calling GvG is not actual GvG.
GvG is the mode that was available in GW1. Something that they are giving us a more advanced version of with HoT.
And stupidest argument of the year award goes to…..
Are we going to say that sPvP isn’t a real game-mode, because Battlefield were using the name “Conquest” first?
Are we going to say that jumping puzzles aren’t a real thing, because Mario totally did that years ago?
Just because you made a 25 vs 25 TDM for guilds doesn’t mean you’re entitled to the GvG format.
In PvP you’re also playing TDM and Conquest, so both forms can be GvG.
However, as I’m a GW1 player I support the GW1 format of GvG.
Kill enemy guilds lord, game won.And you’re still getting hung up on the name.
It. Is. Just. A. Name.
Call it whatever you want, there are still a lot of people out there who enjoy it and wish it received some sort of support.
You could call 2 guilds competing to collect the most iron-ore GvG if you wanted. It. Is. Just. A. Name. You could call 2 guilds role-playing dolyak races GvG if you wanted. It. Is. Just. A. Name.
Just.
A.
Name.
The fact that GW1 had a game-mode called GvG doesn’t in any way invalidate what players in GW2 enjoy spending their time doing.
So what’s your opinion?
So far you’re only countering players who claim GvG isn’t a 25 vs 25 TDM.Well since, you asked, I would very much like it if an official game-mode was introduced supporting what players in GW2 WvW have been calling GvG.
However, I wasn’t going to give that opinion until you asked, because it’s just farting into the wind on these forums. ANet aren’t going to support it because of “really interesting, very excite, definitely look at, not at this time, can’t say anything”. That’s been made clear repeatedly, so quit stressing.
I just post here because I have an uncontrollable reflex to call out bullkitten when I see it.
Thanks for your opinion, though when you’re calling out bullkittens keep an eye out that you don’t sound like some immature forum troll.
Thanks for clearing it up
Guild Missions SA in 50 minutes!
Bump
It would be better if Guild Leaders would have an option to dye it so it matches the guilds icon!
Besides that, it only is epic on charrs imho…
Hey there Komle.
When The Night Falls [WTNF] is an Dedicated PvE Guild with players also doing PvP, only a few do WvW.
We’d like to see ourselves as an Casual / Family type of Guild, where players are valued by their Attitude and Personality.
The guild was founded on Aurora Glade, but as we don’t do WvW content as guild there is no problem with having a different home server.
Daily activity on TS, It’s not something we have as requirement for the guild. Though there are players who login to TS whenever they are in-game. And it’s increasing lately as more players do it. During our guild missions these numbers are highest though.
We don’t have weekly events, though there are always players up to do stuff which will ask in guild chat for more. Otherwise feel free to ask for anything yourself
If you’ve got any questions feel free to contact me, or check out our website:
http://www.wtnf.net
Grtz
Holy
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Guardian of Angels.9867
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Guardian of Angels.9867
I thought they were gonna re-invent the WvW mastery system based on this new PvE thingy.
Because they quoted before:“We’ve had a taken a look at the WvW system, and improved it” or something like that
So I wouldn’t be surprised if they gonna reinvent your WvW masteries and make them “Better”.
It does when those objectives are in the environment by definition of what PVE means. Player vs environment is exactly that.
If the player is forced to kill the other players to win, that is pvp, that isn’t the case with any map but courtyard.
i challenge you to win a game in ranked/unranked q without attacking another player. even get a team together and none of you attack another player. let me know how that works for you.
I have already done this, it is actually very easy to win without killing if you go in with your guild and you bind/ stun/ chill knock back the crap out of them.. They just cannot move the whole game, and yea they get angry to say the least . LOL
I will go grab 4 eotm pugs. We will do khylo. if you can beat me and my pugs without killing a single one of us I will give you 100 gold. If you can’t all I want is you come back here and say you were wrong. Sound fair?
No, since I am not even on the game right now, nor can I get on the game right now, nor is anyone from my guild to play you. You have to spec all the builds to be able to play that way, and that takes effort…
lmao!
what a total jokeYou would have to raise the stakes to make that worth anyone’s time. That is only 20g a piece split, I spend more than that on getting nubs to scout towers. LOL
First you counter his offer by saying you’re unable at this time
Then you counter his offer by saying it’s very time consuming doing it
Then you counter his offer by saying he isn’t paying you enough for it?
Since multiple people have already questioned you, wouldn’t it be very rewarding to proof you are right? Even if you know you’re right (Which I don’t think), wouldn’t it be awesome to put some evidence in their face of how right you are?!
Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol
No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.
Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.
There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.
If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.
Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that
You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.
Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.
So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.
Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps
talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall
Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.
pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.
Actually, the wiki states:
" In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing."This means that it’s not a fact, but players prefer calling it like that.
Though, GW2 doesn’t call PvP player killing otherwise we’d only have TDM.It’s nice you’ve found a lot of other games that do fit within your idea of PvP.
Guild Wars does not fit in it, so yay to you but you’re wrong.At least regarding GW2.
That is like saying that " sometimes a dude is referring to a guy…"
If that is what many people understand it to be, that is what they expect.
You’re just assuming some words holds your definition, because you agree that most people think the same way as you.
Just because it might be popular to some, doesn’t mean it counts for the entire population.
You should start a thread in WvW, how WvW is actually PvE because of your definition. Wonder how that will turn out
MOST people who have played many computer RPGS , yes, because that is what they called it in all of them. SO much so, they added it to wiki for a reason. If I were playing candy crush, I would expect them to not know what people meant by pvp.. but not in an mmorpg.
If you assume you’ll make an kitten out of u and me.
Enjoy <3
Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol
No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.
Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.
There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.
If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.
Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that
You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.
Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.
So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.
Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps
talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall
Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.
pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.
Actually, the wiki states:
" In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing."This means that it’s not a fact, but players prefer calling it like that.
Though, GW2 doesn’t call PvP player killing otherwise we’d only have TDM.It’s nice you’ve found a lot of other games that do fit within your idea of PvP.
Guild Wars does not fit in it, so yay to you but you’re wrong.At least regarding GW2.
That is like saying that " sometimes a dude is referring to a guy…"
If that is what many people understand it to be, that is what they expect.
You’re just assuming some words holds your definition, because you agree that most people think the same way as you.
Just because it might be popular to some, doesn’t mean it counts for the entire population.
You should start a thread in WvW, how WvW is actually PvE because of your definition. Wonder how that will turn out
Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol
No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.
Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.
There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.
If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.
Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that
You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.
Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.
So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.
Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps
talking to a brick wall isnt really worth it.
he has his own personal definition of what pvp is and therefore no matter what the REAL definition is he wont accept it.plus what i find funny is by his concept of pve then everything is pve and pvp doesnt exist in any game anywhere. cause every game takes place in an environment that is not player controlled. /headmeetwall
Their stance is just that only deathmatch is pvp, even though it’s just a mode among pvp, whether it is MMOs or first person shooters or whatever.
pvp = player killing became popular in rpgs primarily, and then carried over to FPS, and other genres.
Actually, the wiki states:
" In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing."
This means that it’s not a fact, but players prefer calling it like that.
Though, GW2 doesn’t call PvP player killing otherwise we’d only have TDM.
It’s nice you’ve found a lot of other games that do fit within your idea of PvP.
Guild Wars does not fit in it, so yay to you but you’re wrong.
At least regarding GW2.
Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol
No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.
Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.
There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.
If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.
Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that
You don’t have to fight players over rings is the issue, not everyone plays that way. I had them run away the whole game.. IF that can happen and they still get points, that is PVE, not PVP. You should not be able to score without killing for it to be considered full pvp. It is PVE with pvp elements when scoring is based on environmental factors rather than killing players.
That isn’t to say it isn’t competitive play, it just isn’t full out player killing.
I agree, but PvP isn’t the definition of players Killing other players.
Wiki quote:
“Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants”
It states conflict, not the act of killing the other players.
So you might not enjoy it, the facts state it’s PvP wether the enemy has to be killed or not. So in conquest the conflict resolves about who’s controlling the rings.
Like WvW, which has a conflict over rings aka Towers/Keeps
Considering Forest and Foefire are the only maps with PvE elements lol
No, they just have more pve elements, Courtyard is the only one without them. IF one team is focused on fighting and not capping, the other team can win easily by not fighting. YOU can stun/ bind/ knock back to win as well, and not even kill a single player.
Khylo has no PvE elements. Neither does Temple.
There’s a difference between objectives in a map and PvE.
If the objectives are environmental, it is still player vs environment.
You still have to cap rings to win though, so I see those rings as environmental factors.
And the fact you fight other players over rings doesn’t matter?
It’s PvE because it’s Conquest…
I won’t bother you anymore, but please don’t be surprised if players disagree with you on that.
Even the gamedesigners disagree on you with that
Hey Emnity,
When The Night Falls [WTNF] is an Dedicated PvE Guild with players also doing PvP, only a few do WvW.
We’d like to see ourselves as an Casual / Family type of Guild, where players are valued by their Attitude and Personality.
We might be a little bigger then you’d appreciate, though that’s up to you to decide
At normal evenings you’ll find 20-30 players online with a total roster of 200.
If you’d like some more info, feel free to whisper me or check out our website:
http://www.wtnf.net
Grtz
Holy
Dungeons give 70% of a lvl upon completion, just go make your own group and call it “Everyone allowed” or something. You might find a few nice lvl 80’s to aid you
PvP is a nice way, though go unranked and find yourself a decent build. Read / learn and watch the build!
You should be able to get 1 tome of knowledge every hour you play PvP (if winning ^^)
Goodluck!
Hey trip,
You might get an i5 (i7 is overkill for GW2 and only gives you like+1-3 fps).
I agree on the GTX970, or even GTX980 now you’re saving €100,- on your processor!
Your RAM is fine, don’t change it!
A sidenote:
GW2 isn’t optimised to the latest hardware, meaning you will always have framedrops in heavy crowded area’s. Zerg fights and Tequatl aren’t even the worst thing you can encounter in this game.
Try doing the Daily Achievement for a low zone World Boss.
Your FPS will drop under 20-25 guaranteed no matter your hardware.
Hey Mighty,
Here’s the metabattle build for Dungeon Guardian:
http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Guardian_-_GS_Sword/Focus
I use sword/focus with it.
Once you get used to the build, rotation, etc it’s a great build!