Guild Wars 2

And yet you persist. Interesting. Perhaps the proper thing to do is stop posting to me.

Could it be? Is that the true way?

Well, it would be if I were actually trolling. You don’t know what that is either, but are quick to chalk it up to trolling because…oh…you poor thing. You were wrong.

D=

Lmao.

Considering I was without a guild on T1 for almost a year, before I joined a guild and moved servers, and did nothing but roam, sure, you could say that -cough-. Fact of the matter is, you don’t know guardian as well as you think, how you want it to seem like you do, and you’re probably just parroting what some scrub said because they got rekt in-game for their lack of knowledge as well. It’s well suited to roam, just like every other class, if you do it right, and actually know what you’re talking about.

You said several things about the class that made it bad for roaming. I pointed out you were wrong, and you still persist. That’s just being stubborn, lol. Clearly you don’t much about the class, which is why you’re still dragging this out. Too late to save face, however, the damage has been done!

Julie Yann.5379:

I also didn’t say I wasn’t any good, or that I didn’t have any success as a roaming guard, I’ve even had success roaming with a spirit weapon build and burn build. I am just able to remain objective about it and admit that other classes like my warrior, thief, and Ele are so much better suited for WvW roaming. If you really want to discuss it start up a thread about roaming guardians so that we can keep this one of topic.

Back on topic,

While I don’t have much experience with Ranger, Engi , or Mesmer. Out of the classes I do play, Thief, War, Ele are top roamers, although I can easily see a Engis being somewhere at the top.

No, you’re right, you didn’t. I am saying that though, so it’s beside the point you wish you could make. You very clearly have little understanding of guardian to make a claim that it’s not suited for roaming, when there’s plenty of evidence to support the contrary. I.E. you don’t know what you’re talking about and still commented, thus the penalty for so doing is being called out! =D

But yeah sticking with my top three in no particular Order; Warrior, Necro, d/d ele. Thief is a given, it was my main toon and I still play it even with how badly it’s been nerfed since launch.

Wow, I wasn’t sure that’s what the thread was about, thank you for clarifying. I guess it’s against forum law to discuss things other than the topic, even if it’s remotely related to it.

So…thaaaaat’s what you were doing, making fun of us, how clever! I couldn’t tell because it seemed like you just wanted to be part of something special. The devolution of the thread needed more people, thanks for participating!

Putting in an option to report people for Hacking would be abused by a good deal of the population, simply because they don’t like someone and would do it out of spite.

Bad option is bad. Record it, screen shot it, do whatever. Anet still won’t do anything about it.

Jeknar.6184:

Oh sorry, I stated it wrong… I actually only have 1,8k hours on it (which is more than both of you combined anyway =P). The 4k is actually my full account time (which actually is much higher than I thought)…

You are so cool. We should be friends in real life, and hold hands while we walk down the street. I just looked at mine and, surprisingly, I only have 498 hours clocked on my Guard. Honestly thought it was more than that since I played it for so long.

Regardless, the amount of time spent playing a certain class doesn’t necessarily mean one is better at or is more knowledgeable of it. They could, afterall, have only been playing one build or akitten a lot.

Case and point, Me vs. Julie Yann. I win, lol.

Jeknar.6184:

I have 4k hours on my guardian, kitten you two, have a nice day…

Go get some fresh air.

Julie Yann.5379:

Styles.7469:

Lolk. Again with the, “by design, blah blah blah.” So now you’re changing what you were saying from, “Guards suck as roamers.” to, “Guards aren’t at roaming because…” and you still haven’t come up with a decent reason why. Guards, especially in the hands of good players, have proven to be an unexpectedly good class for roaming.

So let’s see now…

Swiftness – Staff 3, “Retreat!” & “Save Yourselves!” = Speed buffs

You sure about lacking CC’s?
Staff 5 – Ward = CC
GS 5 – Pull = CC
Hammer 3/4/5 – Immbolize/Knockback/Ward = CC’s
Scepter 3 – Immobilize = CC
Shield 5 – Knockback = CC

If you’re disengaging, and I’m only assuming you haven’t burned through all o fyour cooldowns immediately, then you’ve got…plenty of skills to help block attacks, reflect attacks, strip condis (or convert them into boons), etc. etc.

Small example for what you’re saying guards lack proven wrong. I’m just going to assume you never actually took the time to warm yourself up to playing Guardian at its fullest potential, or were using some toss-together build that didn’t actually work for roaming, and were met with defeat.

1. I have over 500 hours on my guard and have practiced (not just played but actually practiced) many different builds (meta and non meta) for different purposes in PvP and WvW.

2. I never said they sucked, I said they were an underdog for roaming when compared to some other classes even when played at their fullest potential but whatever, I will not argue with you cause apparently you know it all and are always right.

There’s no need for you to argue in the first place since you didn’t make a case with any substantial worth. Admitting you are wrong is just as good as not arguing.

I’m not a know it all, but it’s safe to say I know the class better than you, and showing you why you’re wrong, yeah, will make me right. I’ve got plenty of hours (somewhere past 1k) of Guardian under my belt as well so…-shrug-

Maybe you should learn how to roam on guard a little better before you say things like that.

sirflamesword.3896:

Styles.7469:

@Bubi

Yes, it’s your english.

I tried to be reasonable and give explanation. You, therein, proceeded to nit pick at everything for minor, minor details. I told you I was done before, and I’m satisfied because I know I’m right – it’s not pay to win regardless of how badly you and the others want it to be.

You will have to excuse me because I have more important things to do with my day (and the three hours of sleep I managed to get last night) than sit here and go through detailing the real definition, it’s sources, evidence, my research etc. with a fine tooth comb (which apparently I’m supposed to take your word for doing also) to satisfy your need to be right over something you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing (hence the counterarguments) .

Because it’s not up for debate. Your perception of the definition of Pay to Win needs adjustment, while mine and the others like mine do not.

It WASN’T his English at all, it was you taking a “definition” you made up(since there is NO “true” definition of p2w since it changes from game to game. Oh well, you will give some anecdotal “evidence” that your definition is the “true” definition anyway.

Firstly, I like it when people get mad before they even read up on the entire argument.

Secondly, it’s not just my definition. It’s the fact of the matter that what I so happen to know describe as Pay to Win coincides with the real meaning. You’re reading too literally into one word while missing key points in the argument. Understandable when you consider that you’ve missed the rest of the debate.

Thirdly, you don’t know how to use “anecdotal evidence” right. Stop using wiki or whatever site you’re using and half-comprehending what’s being said in order to sound intelligent. It failed.

Now then: Pay to win does not change from game to game, and you’re narrow minded for even suggesting it. It has one consistent meaning which is lost in interpretation by people unable to comprehend the root of its meaning. Other meanings dictated by a persons perception and often mistaken interpretation are still incorrect regardless of actual anecdotal evidence supporting it; despite a “definition” having a broad approach in describing something it still defers to what the actual definition is.

The simple version: Pay to win really comes into effect once you have to pay to stay on par with other players, which is something you couldn’t reasonably do without paying.

Yes, it was his English because he doesn’t understand what’s being said and persists with counterproductive arguments, on his behalf, that do little to justify what is or is not an exemplary representation of what truly is Pay to Win. His anecdotal evidence did little to support his argument while what I’ve said is still true. He could not disprove the “true” definition, nor could he prove his own.

You can use many ways to describe what Pay to Win means, but its true meaning does not devolve based solely on what someone thinks it should mean. There’s plenty of evidence available to support any theory, but the facts don’t change.

Candy Corn Gobbler is not Pay to Win, and that’s all there is to it. -shrug-

Ross Biddle.2367:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

How about the game being the reward? How about being motivated by not loosing your towers and do your best? If people are only motivated by loot/XP/Karma they may remain in EoTM. I’m thankful for them not crossing over to WvW more. We already have enough of these parasites as it is.

I sometimes wondering if people have slots on the top of their head to insert coins that are spent to make them move around and seek more coins so they can continue to move…

He’s on to the system! Quick, someone send in the agents.

LMAO!

Tiffany.8576:

Target commander. Press Ctrl + T.

This.

Plus, making the set higher up could make it more difficult to see on certain terrain where you would have to angle your camera up more. Instead of having it sit higher, you’d be better off with the tag having a priority in your field of view when you’re within a certain range (like 3000 units or something), meaning you can see it through terrain and toons alike. Would probably better suit this problem.

Lolk. Again with the, “by design, blah blah blah.” So now you’re changing what you were saying from, “Guards suck as roamers.” to, “Guards aren’t at roaming because…” and you still haven’t come up with a decent reason why. Guards, especially in the hands of good players, have proven to be an unexpectedly good class for roaming.

So let’s see now…

Swiftness – Staff 3, “Retreat!” & “Save Yourselves!” = Speed buffs

You sure about lacking CC’s?
Staff 5 – Ward = CC
GS 5 – Pull = CC
Hammer 3/4/5 – Immbolize/Knockback/Ward = CC’s
Scepter 3 – Immobilize = CC
Shield 5 – Knockback = CC

If you’re disengaging, and I’m only assuming you haven’t burned through all o fyour cooldowns immediately, then you’ve got…plenty of skills to help block attacks, reflect attacks, strip condis (or convert them into boons), etc. etc.

Small example for what you’re saying guards lack proven wrong. I’m just going to assume you never actually took the time to warm yourself up to playing Guardian at its fullest potential, or were using some toss-together build that didn’t actually work for roaming, and were met with defeat.

Julie Yann.5379:

Styles.7469:

Julie Yann.5379:

Sebastian Knight.4736:

I think people are severely underrating Medi Guard’s roaming capabilities. With Sword 2, GS 3, and Judge’s Intervention you have 2400 range burst mobility. The teleports are also instant cast and combined with a plethora of blocks at your disposal, you can jettison yourself out of sticky situations pretty well

Like with Necro, roaming on a Guardian just requires a bit more map awareness, with an emphasis on keeping track of ambient creatures/wildlife as escape teleport targets.[

The other great benefit of roaming on a Guardian is that people constantly underestimate you, especially thieves and warriors, whom you counter pretty hard and run into a lot while roaming.

Sirendor.1394:

I agree with this aswell. One of my most succesful roaming builds on guardian was medi build with gs & hammer (don’t like sword that much) and runes of speed. If you’re a skilled player you can turn guardian into a killing machine.

The problem with roaming medi guards is if the fall upon a bigger group they have no way of escaping unlike thief, ele, mesmer, warrior, and ranger (a real build, not the nub’s bearbow).

You missed the part where Medi-Guards have a 2400 range run-away capability with two weapon skills an a utility that were stated in the first paragraph of the post you quoted. Just thought I’d point that out. You can thank me later.

I ran a medi guard roaming build, I know it’s capabilities. 2 off those require a target which slows reaction time since you have to click on something that is far enough away, and 1 (our longest teleport) is on a 36 sec. Add to that the fact that we have to kitten our build with traveler or speed runes to get +25% movement. Guardians are definitely underdogs when it comes to roaming.

Glad you’re trying to convince me that you know it’s capabilities, but even a novice roaming medi-guard can click on a tower wall, or gate, or yellow mob and use the insta-cast skills to teleport away, lol. That is inpart wehre map awareness also comes into effect. It’s not very different than a thief using Shadowstep, of an ele using Lightning Flash, or mesmer using Blink.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

different classes/builds roam differently, that doesn’t make them inferior candidates for roaming, it just means that to excel you have to know how to get the most effective use out of it and play accordingly.

This.

Fluffball.8307:

Necro and guardian are just not designed for roaming. They can roam and beat lower skilled players, but their inherent strengths are located in other areas, and their inherent weaknesses are exactly what you don’t want for roaming.

I just can’t see how it’s possible for a necro to beat an equally skilled opponent. At the very best, he can force a stalemate and watch as the other profession simply wanders off at whatever speed he feels like, and the necro can’t catch up.

I’ve seen plenty of “equally skilled” necros and guardians beating other roaming classes, because their inherent strengths placate to the inherent weaknesses of other classes, just like their weaknesses are subject to exploitation by the strengths of other classes. But then you’re just getting into the semantics. Proper build, equal skill, no diengaging, blah blah blah.

Straegen.2938:

Styles.7469:

It largely comes down to the fact that players view Guardian as a support build and think it should only be good at that, much like players used to think Necromancer was viewed to be viable only as a condition class.

To be blunt, Guardian and Necromancer have high DPS pools and sick burst damage that is severely underrated. Getting ambushed by either of these classes running roaming-style builds is devastating to the attackee.

They aren’t underrated by good roamers. When I run into a good one, I know the fight ends in a draw or worse for them. I sometimes kill them, other times chase them to a door, kite them until the battle changes in my favor or skip out completely on the fight. Fighting a roaming guardian or necro is a free kill or a why bother. Both classes do excel and are very strong in skirmish fights though.

Roaming on one I know I am going to get parked every time a larger force shows up. Also, awareness doesn’t get a player out of Long Range steal, warrior sprints, etc.

inb4 you’re the best there ever was, eh?

Pretty sure…there didn’t need to be another thread covering this topic.

It would be wise of people to perhaps read the previous threads on the subject instead of making another whiny post that emphasizes their utter lack in ability to comprehend the bigger picture.

@Bubi

Yes, it’s your english.

I tried to be reasonable and give explanation. You, therein, proceeded to nit pick at everything for minor, minor details. I told you I was done before, and I’m satisfied because I know I’m right – it’s not pay to win regardless of how badly you and the others want it to be.

You will have to excuse me because I have more important things to do with my day (and the three hours of sleep I managed to get last night) than sit here and go through detailing the real definition, it’s sources, evidence, my research etc. with a fine tooth comb (which apparently I’m supposed to take your word for doing also) to satisfy your need to be right over something you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing (hence the counterarguments) .

Because it’s not up for debate. Your perception of the definition of Pay to Win needs adjustment, while mine and the others like mine do not.

I would actually just as soon not buy the gobbler or the buffs regardless of whether or not it was pay to win. They seem like a waste of gold/gems and time for a short duration unless you’re planning on doing some hard farming.

I don’t view them as having any significant advantage over another player. I used to run them in WvW back when I was a wee-noob. They didn’t help me then.

The Killstreak and XP boosters are probably the only two I would place value on since they help you get to level 80 faster by killing mobs, which is my personal favorite way to level…by playing and killing things.

1. I can think independently which discludes having to accept rants on forums as definition.

A.) I do not have accept rants on forums as the definition, which are subjected to bias and interpretation definition of the ranter, when the definition is the source of the rant to begin with.

B.) Am aware of what the definition is from personally researching it, along with having the wherewithal to interpret its meaning as intended, through experiencing it, and need no verification of the rants on the forums when the information has been available through notable sources (see also: a)

2. When you key word search a forum with a word or phrase with cntrl+F, and look at the number of listed entries on multiple pages, it is reasonable to come to that conclusion, despite not actually needing their support (see also; 1-a).

3. See 2. and also 1-a and 1-b.

a.) The clear definition is in discussion, giving approach rather than pause to the concept that thousands of people, or perhaps sites, have covered this topic.

b.) Some people need affirmation from others, or like to say the same thing but make a word salad out of it, perhaps sharing an experience and/or complaint.

Naivete isn’t on the menu, unfortunately. Available is the avenue of payment, reasonably obtained are the items. Even a casual in GW2 (like myself) can make 45g in a few hours of play time. New players, maybe not because they aren’t aware of the ins and outs of the game. -shrug-

I’m more scholarly than you’ll want to give me credit for. Having anticipated your response, I came up with this…

I didn’t want to spam the 40+ links of “What does pay to win really mean?” and “True definition of pay to win.” on notable sites (like Steam and IGN) with likely thousands of people confirming what’s been said against you and others that I’ve been practically parroting.

Styles.7469:

I edited this part just to make you look at it again and see if you missed anything else, and now you wasted more time reading the..yep…that’s three times now.

As for the evidence…I can see you missed every detail about the gold to gem conversion and reasonable availability of boosters. Even the note about Mafia Wars’ which was important. Evidence following examples, directly from the source of the very game you’re trying to discredit as pay-to-win (which, by the way, occurs most frequently in free-to-play games).

(okay, so I may have misused the term evidence. I’m allowed to blame that on it being late and not having slept in over 28 hours)

Evidence. I edited this part just to make you look at it again and see if you missed anything else, and now you wasted more time reading my posts again to make sure there’s not anything added in all my other posts.

If you think about the reasonable availability of gems, and then continue reading you will find i did it twice in one post.

You mean the evidence that not only I provided, but others provided granting insight into was pay to win really is? Or the examples I gave? Or acknowledgement of your finding on one site with an open interpretation on the internet?

Congratulations.

Styles.7469:

You can try to argue semantics all you want, but try as you may, the definition stands strong regardless of how hard you want to spin doctor it…kind of like how I said this…

Styles.7469:

So really, especially this far in, it’s not about the fact that people are mistaken, it’s that they’re holding onto their opinion very stubbornly despite the aforementioned descriptions and evidence suggesting otherwise.

They want it to be pay to win so they’ll have something to complain about, since the last bandwagon was already full.

Styles.7469:

Try reading. Try interpretive thinking. Try critical thinking.

The box. Once you move out of it, you will discover it’s not on the wagon! =O

I don’t even know why I bothered in the first place. I know it’s not pay to win, as a matter of fact and not a desperation of opinion.

But, then again, I can think independently.

I can just keep reposting this and be just as stubborn as you are, lol.

Convenience items do not fall into the category of pay to win because their effects are insubstantial to the overall balance of the game.

They’re insignificant in terms of use versus skill, meaning skill can overcome the use of convenience items just as readily as the mistaken assumption that these items will grant you any significant advantage.

Pay to win really comes into effect once you have to pay to stay on par with other players, which is something you couldn’t reasonably do without paying.

Not sure how many different ways the same thing needs to be said in order for you to understand.

Bubi.7942:

Styles.7469:

Pay to win has one true definition…

Really? Despite sounding like a Manowar song, what is the true definition of P2W? I’ve put in the effort of googling for 10 minutes “true definition of pay to win” and “pay to win definition” and alas, I only came up with 1 urban dictionary “defintion” (which btw is not what you stated), and lots of forum rants. Please do tell where you get the tru-metal-warrior definition from. No, your head doesn’t count.

As for the rest of your post:
So even in the absurd situations I mentioned you think it’s fair cause gold can be converted to gems. And that is your only argument. It doesn’t matter if a player might take weeks/months of effort/farming to get the same boost that the other player gets for 10 bucks in 2 minutes. I really wouldn’t want to live in your reality.

But ok, let’s not call it P2W then. is P2BS fine then?

Also may I ask, if everyone can get these buffs, what is the point of having them? Wouldn’t it be the same without?

You can try to argue semantics all you want, but try as you may, the definition stands strong regardless of how hard you want to spin doctor it…kind of like how I said this…

Styles.7469:

So really, especially this far in, it’s not about the fact that people are mistaken, it’s that they’re holding onto their opinion very stubbornly despite the aforementioned descriptions and evidence suggesting otherwise.

They want it to be pay to win so they’ll have something to complain about, since the last bandwagon was already full.

Urban dictionary…really? Yeah, I read that too, and it leaves a lot up for interpretation because it’s Urban dictionary.

I think I’ll stop now, because if the point hasn’t gotten across that this is not pay to win, it will never get across people as stubborn as you, lol!

Try reading. Try interpretive thinking. Try critical thinking.

The box. Once you move out of it, you will discover it’s not on the wagon! =O

I don’t even know why I bothered in the first place. I know it’s not pay to win, as a matter of fact and not a desperation of opinion.

But, then again, I can think independently.

Julie Yann.5379:

Sebastian Knight.4736:

I think people are severely underrating Medi Guard’s roaming capabilities. With Sword 2, GS 3, and Judge’s Intervention you have 2400 range burst mobility. The teleports are also instant cast and combined with a plethora of blocks at your disposal, you can jettison yourself out of sticky situations pretty well

Like with Necro, roaming on a Guardian just requires a bit more map awareness, with an emphasis on keeping track of ambient creatures/wildlife as escape teleport targets.[

The other great benefit of roaming on a Guardian is that people constantly underestimate you, especially thieves and warriors, whom you counter pretty hard and run into a lot while roaming.

Sirendor.1394:

I agree with this aswell. One of my most succesful roaming builds on guardian was medi build with gs & hammer (don’t like sword that much) and runes of speed. If you’re a skilled player you can turn guardian into a killing machine.

The problem with roaming medi guards is if the fall upon a bigger group they have no way of escaping unlike thief, ele, mesmer, warrior, and ranger (a real build, not the nub’s bearbow).

You missed the part where Medi-Guards have a 2400 range run-away capability with two weapon skills an a utility that were stated in the first paragraph of the post you quoted. Just thought I’d point that out. You can thank me later.

Zaxares.5419:

That there is the problem then. P2W means different things to different people.

That’s not a problem.

Pay to win has one true definition, and here several people are mistaken in what it means despite being given the definition multiple times, by multiple people, with varying degrees of clarity.

This is much like the common misconception that this game is free to play, but insist otherwise if you challenge them on that too. It’s buy to play with no subscription, and that’s all there is to it. So really, especially this far in, it’s not about the fact that people are mistaken, it’s that they’re holding onto their opinion very stubbornly despite the aforementioned descriptions and evidence suggesting otherwise.

They want it to be pay to win so they’ll have something to complain about, since the last bandwagon was already full.

Bubi.7942:

Can the guys who think it’s not Pay-to-Win please anwser a few questions, I’m curoius:

1. If they would add an booster for 150 gems (lasts half an hour) that boosts all stats by +250, would you consider that P2W?

No. AGAIN you can convert in-game gold to gems, which is fair to every player. And AGAIN the difficulty at which you attain the gold needed to convert into the gems required for purchase is irrelevant, because it’s still available.

Bubi.7942:

2. If they added an item for 3000 gems, that has like 30 secs cooldown, on activation isnatntly kills a player/boss/mob, would you consider that P2W?

This is absurd, but still fall into the previous answers’ category.

Bubi.7942:

3. If the item mentioned in question 2 would only work against mobs/bosses, would you consider it P2W?

If the answer to question one hasn’t sufficed, along with several other entire posts, then by now it’s too late.

Bubi.7942:

4. If the item mentioned in 2 question would be available for 30.000 gold, would you consider it P2W?

…-sigh-

Pay to win – Example: Player One – He doesn’t feel like earning his way to the level cap, so he buys all the max level gear, skills, and buffs needed to boost his stats. He does this with real life currency, right from the start, which is the only option and way to advance in the game anyway after a certain point anyway (or possibly beyond the maximum cap). Even though he will suck, but has better stats, he will win against other players based on that distinct advantage; he could not have otherwise gotten through playing the game because there is no way to earn, craft, or trade for it. He bought everything to win (bought = to pay for). This is very common in Shooter games.

You can’t craft, or obtain higher level gear or post-max level gear in the game at all in pay to win games without buying them with real life currency, and real life currency only.

(I hope I said that clearly enough that time)

Player Two reaches his level cap through playing the game it was intended, but can advance no further until he buys the max level gear. He does not buy the gear, stats, or buffs the only way it is available, which is through real life currency. So, despite being better at the game than Player One, he cannot win because he does not have equable gear to the player that had to, or chose to, pay in order to gain an advantage for assured victory.

Refer to “Gold to Gem conversion” before you keep trying to argue, “Well the boosters, blah blah blah.”

Another example: In the game “Mafia Wars” it is possible to buy Godfather Coins, which can be converted into “Skill Points” which you then use to boost whichever stats you want. Effectively, you could be a level 2 with level 3,000 stats.

Pay to win.

It’s a marketing ploy, the gem store. Obviously they want you to spend money in there since this isn’t a pay-to-play game (i.e. subscriptions). Still doesn’t justify it as pay to win, since it does not meet the criteria.

No player is gaining any item that isn’t otherwise accessible to all other players through any avenue of payment, regardless of content. All players have the same access to all content and items in game.

The difficulty of achieving ownership over any item or content is not relevant.

It largely comes down to the fact that players view Guardian as a support build and think it should only be good at that, much like players used to think Necromancer was viewed to be viable only as a condition class.

To be blunt, Guardian and Necromancer have high DPS pools and sick burst damage that is severely underrated. Getting ambushed by either of these classes running roaming-style builds is devastating to the attackee.

Rabbi Rick.3194:

Pay to win is when a company sells an item, skill, or other feature that advances one player over another for real world cash with NO OTHER WAY of obtaining said items.

Exactly.

And because people will try to supplement their arguments with nothing more than personal dislike for not being able to control something, it must be spoken in plain English.

Being able to convert gold made in-game into gems is a smarter alternative that you would otherwise use real life currency to purchase items from the gem store. This has always been available.

X-amount of Gold converted to 300 Gems – Buy Candy Corn Gobbler – Use – Get buffs.

There is just not enough evidence to support that this is or will become pay to win.

dAcIaW.5107:

Anet seems to be hopping on the P2W bandwagon.

Some other items that I consider P2W:
Consortium Harvesting Sickle – harvests faster then normal
watchwork pickaxe – grants you bonus sprockets as you mine

This is no way, shape, or form Pay to win. What you just considered pay to win is just not what the definition entails, and that is a fact. And no, it’s not up to opinion regardless of how bad you’ll want it to be true.

This has reached an all time low. People will find the dumbest things to complain about and try so kitten hard to make their complaint fit into any category.

…do you even know what “P2W” means?

LMMFAO!!!!

And here marks a prime example of why I rarely even look at or am involved in the forums. It’s too hard not to troll the amount of “lolwut?” going on.

Warrior – GS – Hammer
Necro – D/F – Staff
Ele – D/D

Not necessarily in that order. They just seem to be the most fun, for me, on the rare occasion I do decide to do a little solo roaming. I used to favor thief above all (it was my main for over a year), but I prefer to have the availability of team utility and orientation on a whim, and in my experiences thieves have shied away from that capability.

People that say Necro is a terrible roaming class must not have a lot of experience with the class and it’s versatility. Power, condi, hybrid, control, etc. Necro is really versatile and, to the contrary, an excellent roaming class. They have a +25% movement signet which can be used to get where is necessary and, god forbid, swapped out when it’s time to engage.

Yes people…you can swap out utilities before engaging. It must be an exploit!

It is not pay to win.
Not all of the boosters actually work in WvW.
This has been covered.
People are still grasping at straws.

Spending real life currency on Boosters has always existed, regardless of whether or not they’ve in PvE or WvW. The complaint that this is a method of Pay to Win because it converts an in-game mat to a temporary boost is absurd. Not only that, but the fact that there’s an emphasis that such a small, miniscule, inconceivably unnoticeable difference will have a massive impact on WvW is just down right ridiculous.

All they did was make something available that people will buy, and soon forget to use or lose interest in using. It’s not going to change the dynamic of WvW at all. Not even in the slightest.

It never has in the past, and it won’t any time soon. They got people to spend money in their gem store. That’s what they’re supposed to do since this is a Buy-to-Play game, and not Pay-to-Play. DUH!

Also…WvW is not meant to be balanced like PvP and trying to compare the two from their foundation is comparing apples to oranges. To say it’s not meant to be balanced is just short-sighted because it’s evident that the bigger picture has been lost, or not apparent.

It’s meant to be organized on a larger scale, with large groups, encompassing entire servers all with people owning their respective individual builds. It is a more dynamic mode of play.

…Not five people running the most current meta which essentially comes down to who can run the most up-to-date build the best. Trying to apply the same formula to WvW as is current for sPvP would be utterly disastrous and any suggestion to do so is obviously the sound of QQ from people that can’t handle variation.

Ocosh.5843:

1.-3. My only hesitation arises from the concern that this would prompt more flak being given to new players, or otherwise awkwardly attempting to assign stomps to certain people. (“No, let General Jim do it; he’s rank 3!”) If tied to WvW rank, it sort of becomes a necessary first priority and a (admittedly low) barrier for entry.

Good point and great start. I hadn’t taken into consideration the possibility of new players. AS far as the assignment to stomps go, that’s generally dependent on how or who you may be running with. In my personal experiences with varying skill groups, we usually assigned certain people in our core as dedicated spikers of the enemy; generally it would be a thief or engineer.

However I do understand that implementing this as a tie to WvW rank would make it a priority, which is part of the focus to encourage people that do want to roam or run skill groups, instead of having to focus on PPT, that they can just as equally contribute by taking out an enemy force as they can capping a tower or several camps while remaining on the move.

Perhaps I was too idealistic in that respect though.

Ocosh.5843:

However, I am very much in favor of making stomps more valuable than they currently are, as it promotes risk taking, rewards knowledgeable play, and encourages engagements on a medium scale — everyone tends to be cleaved to defeat at the blob level.

Agreed. That is the sole representation of why spiking opponents should be prioritized. The proposed issue with people being awkwardly assigned having to spike, or arguments on who will spike, etc. will work itself out with time, much like it did with the World Bloolust buff in the beginning.

Ocosh.5843:

4a. Preventing in-combat hard-resurrection would have disastrous consequences for PvE, and I dislike implementing core-systemic changes to balance one game mode (it may also not be easy to do, let alone the confusion it could cause (and yes, I would suggest that would be one of the few instances wherein a new player could be legitimately confused)).

I agree with the general fact that it could be confusing to new players. I do suppose since there is already an in-combat healing penalty, which already reduces your healing while engaged, it would perhaps be equally as plausible that they could place a sterner healing restriction on that function rather than take it away altogether. Even go so far as to reduce the amount of players down from the current number to perhaps two or three?

Ocosh.5843:

I understand the frustration — I’ve been on the losing side of it many times. What if we were to combine the ideas? Perhaps a stomped player could not be resurrected by anyone in combat. This a) encourages stomping (good for the reasons listed above), but b) still allows a side to raise the fallen after a victory. This does permit, as you note, players staying out of combat for the sole purpose of rezzing the defeated, but every would-be battlefield medic is not otherwise contributing much to the cause, and it is furthermore fairly simple to engage them in combat. If even with enemies downed you are being pushed far enough away that you can no longer hit the dead, maybe they’re fair game for the rub. I could see it either way, though.

Good suggestion. The combination of ideas has a solid foundation and an equable balance.

Ocosh.5843:

Shorter timer, yes.

Right? Lol.

Ocosh.5843:

4b. Count me opposed, even as someone who has had victory snatched away by untimely animal deaths. I consider it wise application, not exploitation, of the game mechanics and sound use of the environment. I could be in the minority on this.

I personally don’t run into this problem as much as other people claim to. Generally the rallies from enemies come from the engagements we are involved in, which can run anywhere from 10-25 on either side. I don’t typically roam, or run groups smaller than ten, it’s just not my cup of tea. I would like to see something done about it in the future though to help reduce the amount of problems it causes. My best example is if you’re fighting someone, have them downed, and a near-by animal or bug is low on health; say a friend comes in to help, and starts cleaving the enemy, while haphazardly hitting the now aggro mob, accidentally killing them, giving the enemy player a rally.

Maybe instead of removing it entirely, entitle the rally to the downed player only if they are granted the killing strike from their downed state? Would that seem fair?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/PpK-Implementation-Ideas

Please see this thread for an idea of how PpK may be fairly implemented to our WvW play.

4.) Extended Balances: Other suggestions to increase the balance of this particular system, as well as provide long-lasting benefits and experience to WvW entirely, would bring closure to some of the most frequent and irritating issues we face in WvW. These suggestions will also aid in pulling the away the sole focus of Conquest-PpT.

• Disallowing players to rez fully downed allies while in combat:*
  This may seem as though it will lead to less engagements, but one of the biggest complaints is that large numbers do not equate to great skill. Skilled groups of WvW players can easily take down large groups of double their size, but the mass of numbers allows for the large group to simply hard-rez their downed allies with nothing more than a “Downed Penalty” state if they are downed a number of times afterwards.

• Waypointing spiked players to their current Border Waypoint upon being spiked:*
  This will reduce the amount of players that can be left open field for rezzing after being spiked to avoid some players from simply disengaging from combat, or having a team that will not engage, to come in and rez downed allies without penalty.

Also decreasing the timer to 1:00 (one minute) on the fully downed player state in WvW. Downed players should feel a true penalty for their defeat and take efforts to engage not more cautiously, but more tactfully, in hopes that this will courage more skillful play and more rewarding experiences for skillful players.

• Disallowing players to rally off of anything other than Enemy Players/Guards/Lords in WvW:*
  This can and will prevent the dauntless task of multiple enemies being able to rally after a near defeat by simply tapping a local animal or bug enough times to gain an effective rally. Defeat should not be taken up lightly, on any scale of numbers doing the fighting.

5.) Additional Balances: These are some balance changes that have been suggested but lack specific details or reasons so far. They are an incomplete progression and are procuredly one-sided at the moment.

• Extending period Waypoint timers on an attacked objective to keep defenders from “Rez-Rushing”:*

• Requiring a minimum number of defenders to neutralize the “flip” on an attacked objective’s circle:*

• Disallowing groups of players to destroy a gate below 50% without the use of Siege:*

There are pros and cons to all of this, but as I said in another post, this just seems to be on the right track towards overall improvement, and something we should strive for as gamers, rather than separate servers, guilds, or players. I am open to suggestions on possible improvements.

1.) Kill Capacity: Similar to the existing World Bloodlust Buff, except as something you put into with your WxP points as an individual player.

It would need to activate as a stomp-only bonus, like the World Bloodlust Buff, so players running massive zergs/blobs couldn’t easily abuse it by simply cleaving down enemies, or utilize siege to farm players. I think this and other related balances could possibly help promote more skillful play amongst smaller groups, guild groups, and roamers, rather than encourage zerging to be effective as currently “Conquest” is our main source of point accumulation. This, as opposed to the Bloodlust Buff, would also give solo or duo roamers a more rewarding experience for contributing further to their world, without having to waste time standing in a circle for a minute to maybe get a buff that someone could just as easily decap after they leave.

2.) Distribution: How many points one could accumulate, as in points gained via stomping another enemy player, couldn’t be anything high so as to avoid potential exploits and abuse. Perhaps something similar to Supply Capacity in both cumulative totals as well as points put in to your World Ability traits.

For example:
1 – 30+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 1
2 – 60+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 2 (total)
3 – 90+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 3 (total)

90 ranks for new people in WvW, if you’re a regular, is pretty easy to get in my opinion even as a roamer. This will reduce the amount of complaint from “Fairweather” players that it’s not fair they don’t automatically gain this buff. These numbers, however, have just been grabbed out of the air, and an argument could be made that may necessitate their values to be higher. If low-ranked individuals claim these numbers are too high, they should be reminded that their usefulness is directly connected to the rest of the server, and that perhaps other within the server should help them gain the ranks needed to apply Kill Capacity (if they desire it), which will help develop stronger communication and community alike.

So assuming maximum Kill Capacity, which is 3 pts. per stomp, and the World Bloodlust Buff is active:
1 – 4 pts to World Score per stomp with Minor World Bloodlust Buff.
2 – 5 pts to World Score per stomp with Major World Bloodlust Buff.
3 – 6 pts to World Score per stomp with Superior World Bloodlust Buff.

3.) Direct Balancing: You could even go so far as to balance it so that it’s only available to use if the existing World Bloodlust Buff is up for your world, at least one out of the three. The World Bloodlust Buff would need some polishing, perhaps putting it into a separate instance altogether, in this idea to make it more of an achievement to attain rather than a slightly coordinated variation of conquest.

Here’s why: This balancing would help break down the mistaken assumption that it, the PpK system, would promote nothing but blobbing and Karma-training; the requisite for World Bloodlust has always been about having smaller groups or solo players capping them to efficiently gain a buff for your world without arbitrarily derailing the momentum of the main force. By giving further incentive to keep the World Bloodlust Buff activated, this would require servers with larger numbers to distribute their forces across the map, effectively breaking up the roaming-blobs.

It is not a perfect solution; With large scale cooperation between Roamers, Duo-Roamers, Havoc Squads, Map-Hoppers, and Zergs alike, since it would require cooperation from all of them and stress the importance of organization further, the World Bloodlust Buff would have a deeper significance to lower end tiers, or servers with smaller numbers but multiple skilled groups, that are forced to “blob” to be effective with what little resources are available to them. This would be on the right track to pull WvW from the sole focus of Conquest-PpT, which seems to have been very bland for quite some time.

It is a small change, but I truly believe it is on the right-to-do list of improvement we would not only like to see, but assuredly need to keep WvW alive and refreshed.

Like I said, do better research. The boosters which can be used and fully function in WvW are detailed in the Wiki descriptions. If there are suspicions about their functionality in WvW for a meager concern over menial buffs with short life spans, ask an Anet official about them.

It usually helps when someone offers a useful suggestion and, rather than continue on with the initial complaint, you take up the suggestion to inform yourself a little better.

Your idea of “Pay to Win.” is terribly askew if you think you can win The Game with boosters. That and I can’t really tell what you said because you lack very basic punctuation, so that’s just what I assumed you were going for.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Booster

Very few of these boosters give one player an advantage over another, especially in regards to producing benefits other than helping to level in PvE. Do better research. The Majority of them are removed upon entering Competitive PvP, and only a few are available in WvW.

The PPK system they want to put into effect, I sincerely hope, is as equally balanced as the Bloodlust Buff we currently have (though suggestions have been made that even it could be further balanced). I do strongly believe that it could bring more fighting and open field guilds to fruition in WvW so that the sole focus isn’t PPT via Conquest, and finally give an edge to the servers whom, despite the lack of numbers, bring skilled combat groups into the mix. It would work very well with some of the suggestions I’ve seen and noted in a previous post, and would give not only Smaller numbers a fighting chance, but also bring a sense of reward and better experiences to Roamers, small groups, skill groups, and zergs alike.

Personally, I think there are a few different way Anet could introduce and/or test the PPK system, but to me what I’m about to propose seems as though it could have a correct balance (or is at least on the right track) in order to implement it effectively for long term use in WvW. I also believe I have not come up with some ultimate solution to how PPK should work, but any criticism it receives will be taken into consideration.

Perhaps if, as a gamer’s community rather than separate servers, guilds, or even players, we can actually get through to Anet for truly balanced and enjoyable game play and strive for an improved WvW like we’ve been asking for, yet have hardly received.

Here is what I propose:

Points Per Kill system (other than Bloodlust Buff)
Implementation:

1.) Kill Capacity: Similar to Guard Stacks, as something you put into with your WxP points.

It would activate stomp-only so players running zergs/blobs couldn’t abuse it by simply cleaving down enemies, or utilize siege to farm players. This, as opposed to the Bloodlust Buff, would give solo or duo roamers a more rewarding experience for contributing even further to their world, without having to waste time standing in a circle for a minute just to get a buff that someone could just as easily decap.

How many points one could accumulate couldn’t be anything crazy high, so maybe something similar to Supply Capacity in both cumulative totals as well as points put in.

1 – 30 World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 1

2 – 60 World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 2 (total)

3 – 90 World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 3 (total)

90 ranks in WvW, if you’re a regular, is pretty easy to get in my opinion. Then you could even go so far as to balance it so that it’s only available to use if the World Bloodlust Buff is up. This would help with large scale cooperation between Roamers, Duo-Roamers, Havoc Squads, Map-Hoppers, and Zergs alike, since it would require cooperation from all of them and stress the importance of organization further.

So assuming maximum “Kill Capacity”, which is 3 pts. per stomp, and the World Bloodlust Buff is active:

1 – 4 pts to World Score per stomp with Minor World Bloodlust Buff.

2 – 5 pts to World Score per stomp with Major World Bloodlust Buff.

3 – 6 pts to World Score per stomp with Superior World Bloodlust Buff.

There are still pros and cons, and exploitable issues with the PPK system overall, but I am in high hopes that this is at least a good start.

Pavel.8531:

Styles.7469:

- Points Per Kill system (other than Bloodlust Buff) < Depends how it’s done, but yea, can be tested.

Styles has some great ideas, some can probably even be easy to “test”.

Not all the ideas were mine, but it is appreciated and credit is given where credit is due.

I’m actually in the midst of writing up a good way the PPK system could be implemented that I -think- is fair and balanced (it will need criticism when it’s done), and will give roamers and duo-roamers a better and more rewarding experience, as well as contributing to their world.

There doesn’t need to be a test, is the point. The consensus has already expressed it is a bad idea and doesn’t need implementation.

However, here are some points I’ve seen on just a couple pages of this forum thread, and others I’ve heard in game, for improvements and ideas that should happen.

- Improving the server match up and rotations for WvW

- Disallowing players to rez fully downed allies while in combat.

- Disallowing players to rally off of anything other than enemy players in WvW

- Extending Waypoint timers on an attacked objective to keep defenders from “Rez-Rushing”

- Requiring a minimum number of defenders to neutralize the “flip” on an attacked objective’s circle.

- Decreasing the timer to 2:00 (two minutes) on the fully-downed player state in WvW.

- Rewarding Scouts for their time and effort in Scouting objectives.

- Points Per Kill system (other than Bloodlust Buff)

- Disallowing siege to be placed on gates, withing a certain range, that aren’t Rams.

- Disallowing groups of players to destroy a gate below 50% without the use of Siege.

Removing White Swords from objectives being attacked does not fall into a list of “improvements” which need to be made or adjusted for WvW. It is just not a viable change. Again, these are just a few ideas of improvement that could be made which far supersede what Anet, and only Anet, seems to want to prioritize as far as changes and adjustments go.

There are obvious pros and cons for some, and implementation ideas that are needed for others. However, they’re still better than what is obviously a broken idea.

Purr Kitten.8731:

But then again I don’t expect to be on during your testing of this stupid change.

Me either, sir. Me either.

I for one will not even log into WvW until I’m sure the implementation of this B.S. idea is done and over with. There is zero need to introduce new changes to WvW without first changing the things that require it first. Their sense of prioritizing things has always been a huge flaw.

Here’s what I read from you…

grifflyman.8102:

“Some bragging at being hardcore WvWer. blah blah blah. Try-hard voice of reason whose is the only opinion that matters, regardless of not offering a solution.”

The problem needs to be fixed and they are making an attempt to finally, all be it slowly, fix it.

They’re not even on the right path to fixing the real issues. They’re not even in the same general direction. Creating more problems and ignoring the current ones that need to be fixed is not in the interest of the established plurality who genuinely want WvW to be competitive in a sense other than gaining points through conquest. This has been addressed many, many times since the game’s release, and their attempts to resolve issues has always been to misdirect players with some mechanic that only runs in a circle like the other before it.

The solution is not to keep throwing different things at us in hopes we’ll ignore the current standing issues, or to hope we ignore them by becoming frustrated with something else. They blatantly disregarded, in public may I add, every single type of complaint and legitimate reason not to go through with this and said, “Lol. Too bad, you have to play the way we want you too.” This merits people to be negatively opinionated towards them to any degree they desire.

Any response from Anet that has “We understand…blah blah blah blah blah.”

You don’t. No you don’t. Don’t say you do when it’s evident that you aren’t even taking feedback in for consideration. You introduced a another stupid idea and are still going through with it even when the majority said it’s kittened. You’re just doing it because it’s your idea and you want it to work. It isn’t as simple as that!

STOP changing things that DON’T need to be changed. FOCUS on FIXING things that need the attention first.

The people that play WvW the way it’s really supposed to be played have been telling you it’s a bad idea, and you’re not even listening! You’re catering to these scrubs that want another aspect of the game to be just as easy as farming a copper ore node! You’re encouraging the type of dishonorable gameplay servers use to exploit against servers with lower populations and/or less coverage than them. Last I checked, it didn’t matter if there were white swords on an objective for some servers because they already lack coverage enough to do anything about it, and the servers that do experience having a fully upgraded keep overrun and taken by three people. There are time zone gaps to consider, for one, and making it easier for really small teams to take something as supposedly difficult to attain, like Garrison, is nonsense!

You haven’t even effectively balanced server rotations and match up changes, or actually stuck with a tournament style through to the end that CORRECTLY matches servers based on their performance…yet you’re going to implement some crap ideas that have no foundation to benefit servers that can’t run roaming map blobs!

No white swords is already going to equate to less engagement, which means less fighting, which means less player versus player interactions. This means Points Per Kill is not going to be as effective as you want, and I’m well aware of what your thought process is in regards to how it will positively impact WvW…except what YOU think is not the reality of how things will turn out. What you want, what you’re biased towards, is rarely how things turn out after the fact.

Wtf is the point of WvW if you’re going to leave it to chance that two enemy forces might fight, if one gets lucky enough to catch the other before they just Waypoint out and sneak another objective? PPT is already the focal point and you’re just looking to one another for solidarity, when you should be actually taking into consideration some of the good ideas players have had to improve WvW.

And your recovery is to introduce a points per kill system that can be very easily exploited, again, by the same servers that already have a very dishonorable style of gameplay? Are you aware of how ridiculous this sounds or are you so enamored with the sound of your own voice that you can’t actually listen to reason? We already have the Bloodlust system in effect, and that makes roamers useful when they get an enemy kills. How is it not easier to reward people for the things they already do instead of trying to completely change the way WvW is going to be played?

I must congratulate you and your crew. You’re quite possibly some of the best trolls on the internet, and most of you are doing it unintentionally. If this is secretly about, “Well it’s free to play after you buy it.” Bring on the subscriptions so we can get down to making this better.

WE don’t want to try it, is the point. YOU want us to try it because YOU had discussions, and YOU understand YOUR concerns. YOU ask US to help with decisions and then YOU don’t even fully understand the impact of how badly this is going to effect the already declining population of WvWers that aren’t in Tier 1.

My frustration just met its maximum with this, so let me get this straight…

So even despite the FACT that the negative connotations associated with both of these “improvements” far outweigh any potential benefit to the non-blob, non-karma train community, you’re going to go through with it? Even with all the feedback and good, sound, legitimate reasons not to do it, you are doing it anyway?

Makes me wonder if this program had any devs spend time on servers other than T1 (inb4 that’s not how it works). These are the second and third worst ideas I’ve seen for WvW to date.

You’re very prone to announcing changes to the game, specifically WvW, and “taking in feedback for future considerations…” The issue with that is that you almost always follow through on your own promotions regardless of the negative connotations associated with them, despite very good and solid points against why they wouldn’t be good/work, and simply go, “Lol, well we should balance it a little better next patch.” It honestly makes me wonder if they even bother with trying to keep WvW alive since this game has become more PvE centric since Season 2.

You seriously just said, “Well, we’re going to do it regardless, just to see if you still say it’s a bad idea.”

It. Is. A. Bad. Idea.

Some times you have good ideas for WvW and poor execution – case and point, siege disablers were a neat idea, but the execution was absolute garbage- , but this time it’s just a bad idea and the execution is going to be disastrous by association. There’s no two ways about it.

First off, removing the white swords is a terrible idea and in no way helps WvW defenders, scouts or otherwise, regardless of new potential rewards or reward system. Not all scouts, servers, or guilds operate the same in WvW so you’re already balancing off of something that’s inconsistent at best. WvW is designed to be balanced off of a larger scale, and organization from that is already difficult since not all servers have 24/7 coverage. You’re essentially taking that away and making it more like PvP where one person or a few people can change the entire outcome of a match up if they just happen to stumble over an objective at the right moment. You’re also pushing WvW into a very blob-happy, karma train with this “points per kill” ridiculousness.

That and this is in no way going to be able to stop certain servers from just hunkering down in a few towers, with well placed siege, and begin farming anything that comes near it with extreme prejudice. You’re very much reducing the overall need for open-field combat which is something some servers pride themselves on, and more specifically, some guilds and players have spent the last two years developing the skill to perform at their best while in open field combat.

If you plan on doing this, you should really be smarter about it: reducing the range on who can see the white swords (likely scouts or scouts in nearby towers) would be a much better idea than simply getting rid of them. Since improving commander functionality has been on the table for a long time, having certain types of commander tags or tag “upgrades” that can see swords, but others can’t, is a decent idea. Do you see how both of these are already better than “No White Swords”?

Now…Say you proceed with this nonsense, since you already had your mind made up even though you wanted our input; you need to have a better relay/alarm system that someone (namely the scout whom SHOULD be rewarded for so doing already) can trigger to inform their troops of the enemy presence, other than just saying something like, “lol enemy blob at tower” in map chat. I think this relay would work very well with other potential improvements for Commander (tags) Functionality. Instead of changing the entire mode of gameplay, perhaps you could just reward the people that do actually scout for doing their job and not screw over the rest of WvW (again.)

I mean…even extending the WP timer on Garrison, Hills, Bay, Keeps, and Stonemist would be better so that enemy forces who are defeated can’t just wait for the timer to expire so they can res-rush the team that successfully beat them once already.

Outright getting rid of the swords, the ONLY consistant thing we have available so we know when to respond, is a bad idea that cannot possibly be executed in any positive manner. It’s been the only thing that’s allowed low pop servers to respond when necessary, and its balance is that you have to use tactics in order to gain an objective since you know there’s a potential response from the enemy on its way. If this is a ploy to get rid of “blobbing” it will immediately backfire, as soon enough all of WvW will become a Karma Train.

This is a mistake, and it is a very costly one at that.

/end

I was not informed that we had cookies….

…y’all have been holding out on me. GIVE THEM UP, NOW!!!!

We’re getting bbbbeeeetttteeeerrrr at GvG’s!!!!

Should be fun once we get to the high level competition and start REALLY getting into the serious side of GvG.

Again, as with everyone that cries about other classes being OP, which seems to be the undertone here, because they as a player are bad, maybe you should focus on being a better player and stop wanting your class to be the best faceroll. Take some time with you and your team to develop the necessary skill to defeat someone or a group of someones that’s just plain more skilled than you and your team are in an engagement.

There’s a lot of players that get screwed over by people with such sentiment as yours. They take the time to find a build that suits their needs, get comfortable, and develop this thing…It’s called skill. Lots of players that dedicate real time to working towards their classes’ strength have it, and the fact that the people that lose to them constantly whine about it are the reason why the Thief class has seen the most consistent nerfing across the board since Launch.

/stopThiefqqing

We’re definitely growing stronger as a community. We have a lot of Core members now that value what Oakvale is regardless of current status. Our teamwork and WvW play has become much more solid and orchestrates easily. I am impressed by the level of commitment from within our community, as well as how much all of our members have improved.

There’s a lot of passion involved in what we do that’s only available through the dedication our members have shown. Definitely proud to be part of [Vale] and wouldn’t trade you Bookah’s for anything!

Over 100 members now! =D

Oakvale just keeps on growing and bringing in the personalities!

I think this calls for a Dance Party.

Oakvale has everything you could really ever want as far as a solid guild and comradery goes. Experienced players and commanders, hardened WvW vets, excellent PvX coverage, guild commendations, and most importantly a place to chill and get to know how GW2 works. New to the game? Come find us and Oakvale will be more than happy to show you the ropes so you can see how awesome things really are.