Guild Wars 2

Don’t waste your time Jasher. He made the same offer to someone in the necro forum when trying to argue that dhuumfire builds were not optimal for tpvp. He got someone else to fight a duel for him, that person lost horribly, he fired massive batteries of excuses and dropped out of sight for a few weeks.

Altroll, how you doing on that soloqueue leaderboard?

TheMightyAltroll.3485:

Or perhaps you’re judging based off of a random solo queue, when I was testing a theory crafted build. Because those always show pure skill.

How you doing on that solo queue btw?

I guess we will see. This community takes forever to figure things out and adapt their comps, but with the solo queue leaderboard evidence being shoved in their face, it might happen a bit quicker now.

Yeah, boonstrip the target, stun, burst, cleave the body. 1v1 I could see stability being a problem, but warriors are doing fine right now. If the meta shifts back to a high mobility burst setup with thief/ele/mes in every team, I could see the potential for them to have problems again. Warriors don’t get a lot of uptime when everyone has teleports, stealth, and double/triple stunbreaks. When 80% of the enemy team is relying on toughness/health for defense, stun warriors have a field day.

BTW dev responses in this forum always give me a giggle. I particularly enjoyed this one

jportell.2197:

CntrlAltDefeat.1465:

We also didn’t see any roaming guardians. We also didn’t see any roaming rangers. We didn’t see any defense warriors. We didn’t see any point holding thieves. The logic behind the above statement would mean all professions need buffs in certain area’s..which power creep is what anet said they are wanting to avoid. The mesmer is fine, the current tpvp structure doesn’t allow for all professions to be played all ways, which was the original mission statement of this game.

As for iduelist, recharge of death of phantasm, not upon cast sorts that problem out. That way mesmer pets are identical to every other professions pets.

THERE WERE NO MESMERS IN PAX AT ALL IN ANY CAPACITY. Not that they weren’t filling certain roles. Not that they were only in one or two games. THEY WERE NONEXISTENT.

The team that won the NA quals lost by like 300 points a couple days beforehand to a team with a mesmer who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the pax tourney.

Granted, that team also decided afterwards that their mesmer should play another class in this meta, but not all mesmers are having as much trouble as you. The hyperbole about massive buffs being required just makes you look bad.

Master of Timespace.2548:

There are so many people who do fine in a 1v1 situation yet have not one bit of understanding of positioning or rotation.

If I was interested in that type game, I would just play Chess.

The thing is, once you understand the basics of rotation, the team who can fight better will win 95% of the time. Assuming your opponents are also competent. The problem is the people who give away huge advantages because they don’t understand. They do stuff like split 4 ways and get rolled in 1v3 after 1v3 because they’re trying to control everything on the map and spending all their time dead instead of being able to easily back up their teammates. Those are the games where the players who can fight better lose anyway. The game mode is just too difficult for them to comprehend, so they end up complaining about it all day.

It’s the same with positioning. You can be great in a simple 1v1 where it’s very basic at best, completely irrelevant at worst, but if learning how to fight with a team is too challenging for you, then any team game is going to be too hard for you, not just this one.

Thanks Allie, appreciated.

It’s going to take you a lot of games to dig out of that 32% hole, because randomness becomes a larger factor the lower you go. You will find more 4v5s, more people who don’t understand the game at all making it an effective 4v5, etc. Of course the other side gets the same chance of that (actually a slightly higher chance, since your team only has 4 potential spots for one of those players to take, while theirs has 5), but the point is that it’s chance. Eventually they’ll balance out and your ability will be the only variable. However, unless you’re very good, the randomness will play a larger role than your ability, and that means a LOT of games will be needed to climb out. It is almost inevitable that you will, (assuming you are better than a 32% player), but it will take time, and will probably be very frustrating.

Basically because players make the worst designers possible. You could literally pull random dudes off the street and get a better balanced outcome than you could by asking players.

That’s why I wouldn’t anyway.

It’s due to glicko. The first few games you play will have a bigger impact on your rating, so if you win them all, your rating will be huge. Basically, you should just ignore anyone under 50 games. By next month, you should be ignoring anyone with under 100. After 100 games played, the majority have been against strong opponents if you have a high rating, luck is less of a factor since the games where you have 4 or they have 4 are starting to balance each other out, and you’ve played the great majority of your games with the minimum rating deviation.

TBH, I think that in a few weeks they should raise the number of games required to appear on the leaderboards. 50 might be too high this early, few people have enough time to play an average of 2 games nearly every day, but eventually. The ratings just aren’t as accurate as they should be when very few games have been played. The standard glicko rating deviation seems too high for this size population.

Alternatively, instead of decay, just raise the minimum games required by 5 each month after you first appear on the leaderboards. 1 game required seems too few, it could take several years before you’ve played enough games to get an accurate read. Even 5 won’t give an accurate rating for several months, but it’s better than 1.

I really want to run corrupt/spite/epi on something. I bet that is a lot of fun when you get the opportunity.

A lot more people need to check this out:
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

ensoriki.5789:

Mammoth.1975:

If there was a tutorial that gave you a big ‘YOU HAVE FAILED’ message anytime you or one/some of your NPCs was outnumbered on a node, unless you outnumber them on a different node, that would really help people grasp the basics of conquest.

Still wouldn’t really accurately show how things can play out.
Most of us players play Solo or ocassional Dual/full que. It’s easier to get rotations down (and then make a habit of them) when you voice comp since your teammates more readily let you know what is going down, where they need help and if they are fine. Otherwise you just have to get a feel for it and make your own deductions and might just end up running back to assist those who are fine (wasting time).

tl;dr: Better communication tools.

Yeah but I’m not talking about complicated stuff or making decisions without perfect information. I’m talking about really basic stuff, like which node you should head for at the start in order to avoid getting outnumbered somewhere and then snowballed.

Like, if they 4-1, which node should you head for so that you don’t fail? Not factoring in that sometimes you can carry someone who makes the wrong decision by winning that outnumbered fight, just trying to teach people to make better decisions so you don’t have to carry them so much.

Lux.7169:

Like Symbolic who started late? He went 11-0 about 30 hours ago.

Reira did the same thing about 12 hours ago too.

I don’t really run into too many people who struggle with that last example, but the split example is desperately needed. It seems otherwise intelligent people cannot count to 5 sometimes. Like, ‘If they have 1 at this node, where are the other 4? Is it possible that I should be helping my team elsewhere rather than fighting this 1v1?’

Or, ‘By fighting this 1v2, I’m taking a bit of a risk. Is it worth it? By being here, am I giving my team a numbers advantage on another node? If so, is there a less risky way to have the same effect?’

Quite good players don’t ever seem to ask themselves these questions. Actually, even some really good players will go ahead and engage a 1v2 without asking themselves if it will actually help.

If there was a tutorial that gave you a big ‘YOU HAVE FAILED’ message anytime you or one/some of your NPCs was outnumbered on a node, unless you outnumber them on a different node, that would really help people grasp the basics of conquest.

I thought of another tutorial that could be useful. You have 4 nodes, with a big clear wall or window splitting them into 2 sets of 2. You and your NPC teammate start on one side, 2 enemy NPCs on the other. They both go and stand on their first node until it’s capped, then they both go and stand on their second node until it’s capped. Your npc does the same. You have to figure out a way to capture both your points before they capture both of theirs.

And the split thing, you could have it so they always send one to their home point and 4 to mid. Your NPCs send 1 to home and 3 to mid. You have to work out where to go so that you don’t create a mismatch for your team. You could also have them send 2 to home and 3 to mid sometimes. Or 1 home and 4 mid but one from mid will go home if there’s anything there. That would have to be an advanced stage though.

Again, if your team is ever outnumbered on any point, you lose instantly.

You could do it differently, where you get a team of NPCs spread around an area and a 240 radius aoe lands directly on one of them every 5 seconds. It does zero damage to them but instagibs you. The idea is that you just have to survive all the aoe spam for 1 minute.

Oh I just thought about the AoE tutorial a bit more, you could have a 2v2 fight on one control node, where you get a ‘bunker NPC’ and they get a bunker NPC and a ‘grenadier NPC’. The grenadier has like 1000 health and does 3000 aoe dps, the bunker has like 200000 health but does 100 dps. The grenadier just spams attacks on the point. The idea is that you have to work out how you can cap the point. Then you could ramp up the difficulty with a second stage where it’s the same thing but you only have a melee weapon. In the third stage, if the grenadier dies, it respawns after 25 seconds.

I’m serious man. Do some solo queue games when you get a chance. You can get to quite high rank and still be utterly clueless about how to win. There are so many people who do fine in a 1v1 situation yet have not one bit of understanding of positioning or rotation. People are failing to grasp the basics of the game. It needs to be made easier for them to understand.

Or maybe there could be like an ‘advanced tutorial’, with stuff like big red circles for you to not stand in, and a bit where an NPC puts bleed stacks on you so you have to use condition removal when they get too high, but if you use it too early it will be on cooldown when they get high again. The stuff that people are really struggling with right now. Then another bit where you have a team of NPCs and you choose a point to go to, but as soon as you create a mismatch for your team you lose.

People can’t understand it.

TDM would be better, conquest is too complicated since most can’t understand how to rotate in order to create and avoid mismatches. They can’t stop tunneling the first thing they see, this makes bunkers overpowered. Tunnel vision usually ends up with them all on point in a nice big clump, so aoe should be nerfed. Using active defenses is much more difficult than passive stats, conditions should also be nerfed. Timing your long cooldowns requires you to pay too much attention, evasion needs a nerf.

I’m serious. The game is too complex. I’m really bad, but after playing solo queue this last week, I realised that most people just don’t understand anything about this game at all. If it was simpler, there would be a lot less complaining all round.

Oh well, that kind of rules them out since most games have 5-6 of those classes.

It strikes me that the phantasm build could almost be viable in the low organisation environment of solo queue. Out of curiousity, what does it lose to 1v1?

I considered moving there for stronger competition, then I realised I’m not on the level where it matters. I’ve still got plenty to learn from good NA players. After that I realised my latency would be even worse, and I gave up on the whole thing.

Amstel Steel.2058:

From what I’ve been reading Anet decided to have the matchmaker form teams to face each other instead of forming a lobby of 10 players to then be randomized into teams. Not sure how true this is and if so why Anet decided to go about it this way.

Seems that way. The game sits on “waiting for team members” for about a second, then it sits on “waiting for game to begin” for like 10 minutes.

The team leaderboard has over 20,000, and EU has more. Not everyone has played enough games to get rated yet.

When ratings are visible, players do everything they can to exploit them.

Kavia.8249:

Communicating in solo queue is not sufficient to carry. You also have to make calls that are actually GOOD calls.

Good players in solo queue will know what calls to make, and also which ones to ignore.

Once I had a guy tell me in a match “Mansion lost – don’t go there” when our guard was 1v2 on the point after this guy had got stomped. Well I knew that was a bad call seeing as mansion was our close and we had possession of it, so I went there anyway and won the 2v2 with the guards help. Later in the match he was like “lol don’t listen to me” and I said “I know.”

I think this is the problem a lot of people have. They make bad calls and then complain that no one is following their lead. I am actually surprised that players who make good calls can get that type to listen, since they clearly wouldn’t recognise a good call if it sat up and slapped them.

Kavia.8249:

Mammoth.1975:

It’s only anecdotal, but I agree with the chart almost 100%. Some of the ‘even’ matchups might slightly favour one or the other, but not enough to call it a real advantage. I think spirit ranger vs necro slightly favours the necro but is pretty even, otherwise I agree with it as it stands.

That said, I haven’t seen (or played) a few of the matchups there in the last month or so, like ele vs mesmer for example.

So do you think spirit ranger v necro should be stalemate (currently advantage necro)? I certainly do not think the necro is in danger of losing outright to the spirit ranger given the necro’s propper condi management, at least not in under 60 seconds. If the fight goes the necro’s way it will be over quick, if it goes the ranger’s way it will probably drag on for a long time.

No, I think it is possible for spirit rangers to kill necros in <60s, especially if the fighting has to be done on and around a point. I think the necro has an advantage, just not a huge one. It could be that I’m overestimating myself/underestimating my opponents and am just being outplayed by the spirit rangers I face though

BurrTheKing.8571:

Junkpile.7439:

Games like LoL, DotA, and SC2 are boring to watch. Can’t figure out why anybody would watch gaming.

Well, opinions and all that. Just compare the Twitch numbers of GW2 and those 3 and I think it’s pretty obvious who’s got their ducks in a row. Currently GW2 has 734 viewers while LoL has 47k has SC2 32k. Even if you don’t find them enjoyable (I don’t play LoL or SC2 although I do view the odd tourney) it’s clear that a large amount do. GW2 TPvP has the potential to be a good Esport but not in its current form.

Multiple reasons for this, and I don’t think you’ve named any of them, you’re just dressing up your own bias as concern for the game.

Firstly, GW2 hasn’t launched servers in Asia yet. There are about 50k gw2 tournament players compared to like 32 million lol players.

Secondly, you get a snowball effect the larger the community is. The more people playing, the larger the skill gap between the top players and the average players. That encourages people to watch, in a similar way to more typical pro sports. Watching people at the peak of their abilities and dedication do things you could only dream of is fun.

theonewhoknocks.8641:

Mammoth.1975:

Graveyard is the thing I like least about foefire. Stacking 2 semibunkers and a main bunker is ridiculous on that map. It’s very difficult to down and stomp a second bunker on GY before the first arrives back to support him, particularly if they’re mobile, and decapping is even more unlikely.

And that’s why you don’t let Graveyard get capped. And if you do, then it’s not over, there are 2 more points and the Lord.

I dislike small points much more where you really can’t do anything than succumb to the mass AoE or get off and lose it.

Yeah, and the ease with which triple bunkers can prevent GY from getting capped is also why it’s the only map that ever goes to time. If aoe is only hitting one person, it’s not really aoe that is the problem. Stop stacking on the point.

Graveyard is the thing I like least about foefire. Stacking 2 semibunkers and a main bunker is ridiculous on that map. It’s very difficult to down and stomp a second bunker on GY before the first arrives back to support him, particularly if they’re mobile, and decapping is even more unlikely. It’s so easy to bunker mid on that map that even I can do it fine.

Trickling in works just fine when you’re running a setup like that. The way I see it, large nodes promote boring bunker standoffs and bad play. Whether you find that better than the current meta or not is irrelevant, it’s still bad.

It’s only anecdotal, but I agree with the chart almost 100%. Some of the ‘even’ matchups might slightly favour one or the other, but not enough to call it a real advantage. I think spirit ranger vs necro slightly favours the necro but is pretty even, otherwise I agree with it as it stands.

That said, I haven’t seen (or played) a few of the matchups there in the last month or so, like ele vs mesmer for example.

DiogoSilva.7089:

When I first appeared on the leaderboard, I had 8-2 w/l, and was rank 61. After playing a lot more matches, I’m now rank 360 with 16-18, and about to drop even more.

If we look at the top leaderboard players, they are at the top with similar scores that I had in the beginning. 10-1, 9-1, 8-2, etc. But, I wonder, is that an accurate portrayal of their skills? How many of them will keep their ranking after playing twice the games, and how many will fall?

There’s a good chance it’s not, due to a feature of glicko, and if that’s what we’re talking about then I understand the complaints a little more. There are better solutions than decay though. For example, you could reduce the initial ratings deviation from 350, although it’s too late for that without resets.

The thing to keep in mind is that they are ranked there because they have the highest rating, and you can always increase yours too. This is why people who aren’t at the top find themselves losing position faster, they’re simply being overtaken.

I liked the part where he said he wants to be able to block the damage from hits after they’ve already landed the best.

Guardians and warriors are also showing up fine on the solo leaderboards, as far as NA goes.

Mesmers, thieves, and eles are the only classes that aren’t getting a lot of representation, although there are a few up there still. The balance isn’t as bad as the forums would have you believe, but those three are lagging behind a little, and rangers are a little over represented, with necros a little behind them.

The classes that require reliable teams to spike something out are underperforming. The classes that wear the opponents down and are more durable vs enemy conditions trying to wear them down are doing fine.

If someone has a higher rating than you, they’re higher than you on the leaderboard, end of story. No one is ‘taking up half the spots’. Essentially, the problem you’re having is that they might be afk, but they’re still better than you.

Frizz.6704:

Ok so the leaderboards of 1000 is just the tip of the iceberg then.

Kind of. They’ve only been up a few days, and contrary to forum opinion, most people don’t play every day. As of yet I would say there are under 2k players NA who have played enough games to get a rating.

I would guess over 50,000.

NA team leaderboards had 20,000+ players, since you could at least go to 95% before moving onto the top 1000 (not sure if you could go higher). If the 500-750 split Lux posted is indicative, then EU would have had 30,000+. So that’s 50,000 playing team queues, although not all active, could be any number of players who just queued a few games one week and never played again.

Solo queue will get more, although I don’t know how much more.

Yeah at low # of games played the rating is meaningless. Glicko gives people who are just starting a huge rating boost for beating average teams, or a huge rating loss for losing to them, and luck plays such a large factor in those mid level games that a rating with so few games is just not representative.

The top ten NA players right now are:

1. Stuningstyles
2. Eurantien
3. Deku
4. Demise
5. Scintelle
6. Keldorz
7. Vyndetta
8. Shananigans
9. Tiberius
10. Uhiwi

Each has 50+ games played, which means they’re actually still winning when most of their matchups are against stronger than average players. 50 is still pretty inaccurate of course, but it’s significantly better than 20 on glicko. Don’t get me wrong, there are some amazing players with <50 games up there, it’s just that they need to play a few more games before their leaderboard position becomes a good indication of their ability.

I’ll be interested to see what the board looks like around Tuesday. The people who play a lot will have started to settle where they are supposed to be by then I think. Could take longer though, and it will be a fair while before the people who can’t play so much settle into their spots.

One interesting thing that is coming out of this is the fact that mesmers, eles, and thieves are underperforming, while everyone else is doing fine (although there’s not a lot of build variety among the top warriors and guardians, and pretty much all the rangers are running identical specs). It’s not representative of anything though, as a lot of it is just player perception. There are a lot of good players who have switched to ranger because they feel ranger is strongest for solo queueing (whether or not that is correct), causing ranger representation to increase while other classes decrease. This means that trying to use the leaderboard representation as evidence of relative power is a circular argument, which is unfortunate as it could have been useful.

Another thing I found interesting is that one of the players who is complaining about stacked groups is #14 rated among players with 50+ games and should probably be doing quite well against those teams.

papaganoosh.7908:

This is crazy. Why not ban keyboards, gaming mice, energy drinks, comfy chairs and rainbows and happiness while you’re at it.

Anet climbing in your windows, snatching your microphones up.

I could get on board now that you put it that way.

Rennoko.5731:

That being said, I rarely ever have it dodged. People seem to always dodge too early and get hit. The 1200 range change was rough though, because before it would always hit if you got it to lock on, even if they made it outside 1200. Now even if it locks on, and they can get outside of 1200 while it is traveling, it will dud out.

They tend to dodge away from it, and due to the slow projectile speed, that fails a lot. Dodging towards it isn’t really an option if they’re trying to open some space either.

Yeah I’ve been posting here while trying to dodge getting paired with the same terrible far point camping DPS guard who has been in my team the last 5 or so rounds. I’m having a horrible run. Just lost a game where I was winning 1v2s constantly and a 1v3 once on skyhammer cannon.

The matchmaking does seem a little off, but the syncing accusations need a lot more evidence before people start including names imo.

When playing in the starting bracket for solo queue, I went back and updated an old build that is highly suited to ‘average skill’ games. It’s easy to play and very durable. Low damage but the damage/durability balance is enough to 1v1 spirit rangers who are trying to hold a point so it’s not bunker low obviously, since spirit rangers are fairly durable themselves. The damage gets a lot better vs opponents who don’t really understand positioning so you can pressure multiple guys at once. Good sustain, well suited to 1vX fights depending on the classes you’re facing, so you can carry a little bit despite necro mobility. Just unfair vs anyone relying on burst, but weak to rangers if they don’t need to stand on point, and like everything, weak to endless CC chains. Not ideal for fighting other necros either.

Someone just asked about it again so I figured I’d post it up. It’s not a ranged build, don’t play it like one. Around half your damage is pbaoe, so get in their face.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fQAQNArYWjMad6haaa0bKApCYPp47xjUU8xUKKndA-TsAg2CrIaS1krJTTymsNN8Y5xcBA

Still wouldn’t mind some advice on that WvW build above

Arganthium.5638:

Mammoth.1975:

This doesn’t seem hard to understand, I’m not sure why people have such difficulty with it.

IF you are a good player stuck in the wrong bracket, your team has a good player and 4 bad players. The other team has 5 bad players. Your team is more likely to win. Your rating rises. That’s it in a nutshell.

Luck does play a larger part, as if you get a 4v5 it can snowball into 3v5, and even the best player will have a hard time with that. However, even if you only win one extra game in fifty, you will still go up in the ratings, it’s just going to take you a lot of games to climb out of the bracket with such a poor percentage.

If you’re in a bracket where people are really bad in comparison to you, you will win more than one extra game in fifty, and it won’t take you as long to climb out. Due to the increased randomness of afks and quitters, it can still take a while though.

Unless, of course, your rank was higher than those of the rest of your team, and thus as an outlier the average skill level of your team goes up even though you’re simply an outlier, and the median skill level of your team is much lower. In which case you’d be paired up against a team that is superior to everybody on your team except for you, but you still lose because of this.

And, of course, there’s always the possibility that maybe, just maybe, playing 50 games and winning 52% of them won’t in fact improve your rating- not significantly, anyways. There’s always the possibility that Ostrich Eggs has 70.6% win ratio after playing 51 games, and yet he’s below players with a 100% win ratio after playing too few games to accurately measure their skills. There’s also the ever-so-slight chance that some players, like perhaps (at the time of writing) the one that’s ranked 31st place in NA right now, or the one that’s ranked 44th, that some players can actually have a lower win-loss ratio without having played as many games as Ostrich has, and yet they have a higher rank than he does.

Sorry, but categorical, entirely linear thinking like that isn’t gonna get us places.

Given a large enough sample, 52% will push you up. 50 games may not be enough for a significant impact, you’re correct, since that’s only one more win than the other people at your rating. It will take a few extras to push your rating high enough to stop seeing them in your groups regularly. And that makes sense, since 52% indicates that while you’re better than them, it’s not by much.

Also, being paired with a team you don’t belong in ratingwise is not the issue people are complaining about. That happens to everyone, and everyone will have to suffer the extra losses they get due to that.

I’ve had games where I was 1v2 for 2 minutes and in that time my team still couldn’t cap another point. I’ve had games where a guy just feeds kill points at far for the entire time, yelling about holding down 2, not understanding that it’s taking them less time to rotate and gib him than it is for him to respawn and run back (or that their home point guy doesn’t really count most of the time since all you have to do to keep him out of the fight on most maps is threaten a decap). I just had a game where I was holding 1v3 at gate when tranq came up and the other team still got it despite my team being told it was coming. In fact my last 4 teams have had at least 3 rank 10-19s. It happens. You’re still gonna end up with the rating you deserve, after enough games. You might be up a bit or down a bit at any given time, but you’ll get to where you belong.

Worked that way for me when solo queuing on the old leaderboard. I tanked down to the low 80% range, and I climbed out no problems despite not having the ideal teammates and having to play quite a few matches against top 100 players.

The reason for that is that those losses against top 100 players when you’re at 80% don’t cost you very much rating at all.

This doesn’t seem hard to understand, I’m not sure why people have such difficulty with it.

IF you are a good player stuck in the wrong bracket, your team has a good player and 4 bad players. The other team has 5 bad players. Your team is more likely to win. Your rating rises. That’s it in a nutshell.

Luck does play a larger part, as if you get a 4v5 it can snowball into 3v5, and even the best player will have a hard time with that. However, even if you only win one extra game in fifty, you will still go up in the ratings, it’s just going to take you a lot of games to climb out of the bracket with such a poor percentage.

If you’re in a bracket where people are really bad in comparison to you, you will win more than one extra game in fifty, and it won’t take you as long to climb out. Due to the increased randomness of afks and quitters, it can still take a while though. It can feel like eternity, because it’s no fun being let down by your team at every turn.

Krayiss.4926:

Get 2 pics 3 hours apart of the exact same team, then we will talk.

Considering the pool of top 25 players is…. 25, that some of them will play at X time and some of them will play at Y time, it’s going to happen occasionally.

Also, seeing as Eurantien is one of those players, and when he was playing those early games he had at least one close match vs an anet guy (who went like 10 and 0 himself, must be syncing right?) which they were discussing in heart of the mists afterwards, I’m gonna guess that you just got unlucky.

Just vsed two top one hundred players, a decent player, and two baddies. I can start taking screenshots of good players in ‘unstacked’ teams if a few screenshots are considered evidence.