Guild Wars 2

Yeah, it’s beautiful…

If looks are what you are primarily into, it is a good game.

It’s also pretty fun and seems full of personality while you’re, innocently, levelling for the first time.

Unfortunately though, once you have reached endgame and if you have played deeper, more thoroughly developed games (and can see through good looks pretty quickly) it is also less than ideal in many ways.

I’m one of those people who loves fashion so much I can see straight through it and having observed it in detail, I end up disregarding most of it.

I’m the same with good looks, when it comes to people.

I’m very aware of them initially, as I have a fairly artistic eye, but if that is all there is to someone, I don’t rate them much, after that initial appreciation.

I’m not someone who believes people should get by on looks alone.

I don’t view looks as a particularly rare commodity.

Truly good looking people are fairly rare, it’s true, but fairly ordinary looking people, who have just made the most of themselves with gym bodies, spray tans and too much make-up are far, far more common than people with thoughtful brains and good hearts.

I feel this way about most things, including games.

Having said it’s beautiful, I think the truth is more that this game is like a fairly ordinary looking person, of pretty average intelligence, who scrubs up really well for a first date.

Yeah, it’s a pretty game.

Shame looks are only skindeep.

I don’t like gambling, so I don’t do it.

I like to know exactly how much something costs and then I can make an informed decision on whether I think it’s worth it, to me, or not.

Zera Allimatti.2541:

and women with ‘hourglass’ figures.

They’re not really hourglass, though; they’re mostly pear-shaped.

Marge.4035:

Substance E.4852:

Do people even scroll to the end of the body selection? Both genders have a very “average” body type though the male could do without the defined abs on a body that doesn’t look like it belongs to a guy who does a hundred crunches a night.

You’re right. These are the most proportional looking IMO, but they don’t get used much because of how the armour scales on them. Boots, skirts and shoulder pads come out too huge, which accentuates smaller chest and looks simply weird, not mentioning the clipping.

I’m using these two types on all four of my female characters. The one on the left has smaller chest and breasts, both have variants without the muscled normal map. They look fairly well clothed, though the left tends to have gigantic boots and balloon skirts (it’s a ranger and it shows with medium armour). I do not recommend enlarging heads with those too much, because it later looks too huge with some outfits/armour. Try to keep the size within 8 and half heads canon (so called heroic).

I tried other, thinner ones, but the limbs while wearing an armour are just tragically tiny. I’m no expert, but I think the scaling was made a bit too carelessly and should be addressed.

Yes, the scaling is slightly off, in many cases.

It’s not (generally) awful, but it could be better.

I don’t really like the options you show, either, as the rib cage is too straight and narrow and they are too pear-shaped.

I also dislike tiny head sizes, particularly on female chars, especially as it exaggerates the hip width even more.

I kind of “get” the idea of the heroic body-to-head ratio, on males, as that highlights their height, the width of their shoulders and chest and their general musculature.

It makes them look strong.

But, on females, especially very pear-shaped females, highlighting hip width is just not the same thing, at all…

Because wide hips are, obviously, associated with childbirth; not physical strength.

Not that I’m saying childbirth doesn’t require physical strength – it does – it’s just a different kind of strength (and not really related to the activities in the game!).

I just don’t know many women who want to look like braindead (due to the small head) baby-birthing machines.

What I would prefer is a more balanced type of physique.

Also, something I have mentioned before is that the females tend to have an elongated lower waist and no upper hip.

Plenty of lower hip, in many cases, but no upper one.

I don’t mean they should be given a muffin top, but that they should at least own the upper area of the pelvis, where a muffin top would appear (if they had one).

I realise this may, partly, be due to how armour looks on them.

In reality, some armour would sculpt you, to an extent; whereas, in a game, it just sits on top of your char’s existing shape.

I still think they could make the body shapes a little better, though.

Another thing, is that I find the waist size choices to be a bit strange and limited.

Some of them seem to have practically no waist at all and others have very small waists, that are pretty much as narrow as my char’s (maximum width) head.

People are saying their legs are too long, but I don’t think they are.

I actually think some of their bodies are slightly too long, if anything.

So, in summary, what I would like to see is:

1. A normal head size range (i.e. not, supposedly, “heroic” for females).

2. Slightly broader ribcage, shoulders and/or upper arms, in a feminine way. I don’t want them to look like a man, or like a female bodybuilder – just like a naturally fairly strong woman.

3. A more moderate waist size option – smaller than the straighter ones, but bigger than the very small one.

4. Both upper and lower hip area in evidence, but neither of them overly broad compared with the rest of the body. The lower hips might be fine as they are, in many cases, if the rest of the body was slightly less narrow.

In terms of breasts, I’m fine with them having a larger chest, personally.

I don’t think any of them are that huge in that department, anyway, TBH.

Although, they may look it, in some cases, due to the rest of the proportions.

But, I think there should probably at least be the choice of smaller and larger, on each body type.

Ideally, I think there would be three choices – small, medium and large.

Crimson Clouds.4853:

Nice idea

Just a few things though:

-The outfit should be available for all races
-It is unlikely that the outfit itself would have wings as they would clip with back-items. It would be more likely that they released the outfit and wings as separate gemstore items, like the Lich Outfit and Black Feather Wings.
-Considering this, I think a lot of people would feel ripped off if they bought a “bee outfit” and it didn’t even resemble a bee because of the lack of wings. It would be a better marketing strategy to make a generic insect-like outfit so that the wings could be seen as more of an addition rather than a necessity.
-I could totally settle for a deely-bopper headpiece and insect-wing backpiece though. They’d be pretty fun.

I think they would just have to release it with the wings and people would have to hide backpack.

Either that, or sell it as a set, with the back pack skin included.

DresdenAllblack.1249:

The Op’s Asuran-fetish is concerning. If he drives a van in RL he/she should be arrested on sight.

That’s unfair.

The OP is probably just one of those people who dresses their small dog up in a bee costume (or would do, if they had a small dog).

I also like small dogs, but I wouldn’t dress them up, as I don’t think they like it.

But, a character in a game obviously wouldn’t mind, so I think it’s fine.

I don’t really agree with much that you say, but I guess we’re all different.

I like all the baby ones, especially the cubs and out of them, probably the lion cub the best.

Sounds cute.

Waldir.2571:

McDonald’s does this with the McRib and I believe they have said that they make more money from it by releasing it once in a while than by having it available all the time.. It’s a funny little trick that actually works.

But, surely, with a physical, perishable item, like a food item, it’s a somewhat different situation?

Because, it is more efficient to make a big batch of McRibs up, occasionally, in the knowledge that they will probably all (or almost all) sell; than it is to make them in relatively small batches, continuously and have them hanging around in the hope that a few will sell, before they go bad.

Whereas, with a virtual gemstore item, once it is produced, that is it – it no longer has to be reproduced and can be continuously on offer, without any fear of wastage.

Shinzan.2908:

You might as well ask why they have sales (50% off!) for digital items that in reality cost nothing. It’s just crap marketing (that is crap for the customers, it obviously works for Anet).

No, it does cost money – someone (or more than one person) had to design it, produce it and test it.

Obviously, that cost will probably be covered by a few hundred sales, but still.

They’re also running the game, at this point, on the back of these vanity items.

Personally, I prefer a bigger choice of stuff.

Obviously, if something is only available for a short time, occasionally, you will be more likely to buy it then.

On the other hand, though, if everything is available all the time, that means there is always something to buy when you get the urge (or the money) to buy something.

So, I think it’s swings and roundabouts.

As, although they might have a sudden spike of sales when something comes up for sale rarely, they won’t have as much steady business.

For example, say someone missed the wings.

Yes, they will probably buy them when they come up again.

But what if they a) miss them again, or b) don’t happen to have enough money/gems available at that point in time?

Whereas, if they were always available, sooner or later they would almost certainly be able to buy them.

An example of things that are always available, but still sell, would be the scarf.

Eventually, having looked at it quite a few times, I decided to buy it.

Whereas, had it only come up for a few days, I’m not sure I would have?

As I only really decided I “needed” it, when I changed my char’s hairstyle from loose, to an updo and it exposed part of the pauldrons and the neck area of some armour, that didn’t look very good.

Same with the bear/panda/tiger hats.

If/when I decide to level an Asura, I will probably buy one.

But, if they had only been available briefly, I’m not sure I would have bought them?

I also liked the quiver, but as it had silver on it and both visually clashed and clipped with the bow I was using, I didn’t buy it.

Whereas, if it was always available and I noticed it went with my current bow skin, I might have bought it, sooner or later.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Tigaseye.2047:

I’d be better off with a sub every month than the gemstore.

Based on the amount I have spent, so far (in 3.5 months), I could have played WoW for almost 3 years.

That is, partly, why I feel I have a right to say what I do and don’t like about the game, as much as I like, whether some people on here like it, or not.

Just as with everyone else, your purchase of the box bought you the right to say what you want (within the ToS) on the forums. Spending in the gem store does not give one’s opinion any extra weight — though some might try to paint it that way. Why is that? Because the business owner set it up that way. If believing that frees you up in any way to state your opinion, though, then more power to you.

Those who prefer a store and those who prefer a sub are never going to see eye to eye. Both groups have their reasons, and all the explanations in the world about why are unlikely to shake that conviction. That said, I share Huggy’s perception, that sub games are increasingly providing less for the sub, to the point where — for my tastes — the only difference I see between sub and store games is whether the developer has his hand on my credit card every month or not. Still, I can see why someone else would think differently because they value different things about games than I do.

Well, given that I’m a fairly left wing type – in one way, I don’t particularly feel it should give me more right to have an opinion than some other people who have spent less (or even nothing, beyond the initial payment).

I certainly don’t think it should give me more right to an opinion than nice, considerate, polite, generous, helpful people, for example.

Even if they don’t contribute much financially, they are contributing to a nice atmosphere and that’s fine.

On the other hand, some of the people, who haven’t spent much real life money on this game, but who play it a heck of a lot, seem to think they have more right to their opinions, than the people who have spent more; simply on the basis that they have used the product far more, for free, than them.

That is not the way the world works.

That is not capitalism.

If I ran the financial side of a game, that basically (at this stage) relied on people supporting it through extra purchases, of course I would be more inclined to encourage the developers to listen to the people who spent more.

Rather than the people who were trying to get a permanent free ride, at other people’s expense.

Especially if some of the second group were, quite possibly, ruining the first group’s experience, with their elitist attitudes and in-game currency-hungry playstyles.

Playstyles that often favour efficiency, in terms of maximising loot, rather than ensuring the first group can have fun; or even, sometimes, join in at all…

It would be foolish to expect one type of player to, permanently, financially subsidise the other type, while that other type often openly criticise, try to scare-off and ruin the fun of the first type.

That is kind of why I’m pro-sub.

Because it removes these kind of moral dilemmas and awkward clashes of interests.

Because then, at least, everyone pays the same, no one is subsidising anyone, most people are slightly less desperate for in-game loot and (at least, in theory) everyone really does have an equal say.

Would I want to pay a sub, at this point, having spent this much in the gemstore already and having certain ongoing issues with the game?

Not really.

But, I would certainly have preferred that model from the start, given the choice.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

@Tigaseye
I could have made a way worse build for that necro. The video was either made to be to be that way, or the guy who played the ranger (and had no clue how to) and made the necro build (and actually included things that did damage) has no concept of GW2 builds at all. I suspect it is some of each.

OK, fair enough.

Well, I’m certainly no expert either, so I will bow to your greater knowledge.

I just never hear “get off your necros” in WvW, so that leads me to believe that most commanders consider them to be a better class and/or of more use in most situations and/or easier to play and/or less easy to mess up the build of etc. than they do ranger.

Jaysin X.6740:

Puck.9612:

There are definitely things that can be improved but rangers are solid if you know how to use them.

Yep, and any commander worth his salt would know how to utilize his assets on the battlefield to maximize their efficiency. Maybe it’s just SBI, but I’ve never seen one of our commanders baggin on any class, and I’ve played a lot of WvW.

I’m not going to put them down for it, however annoying it is to be told to switch from your chosen class, because think they’re just being honest.

If someone, who is a commander, has played a class themselves and has found it to be more lacking/challenging/awkward/vulnerable/unintuitive/new player unfriendly/bad build-hampered/whatever than other classes, of course they will be tempted to encourage people to swap classes.

As they just want to maximise DPS output and minimise deaths.

I was in a zerg today, on ranger and it was a complete nightmare – partly due to the fact that we were outnumbered, but partly due to the particular terrain we were fighting on.

Half of the time, I couldn’t even get line of sight to 1,1,1; let alone AOE.

I was constantly obstructed by tiny undulations in the ground, or tall blades of grass (I assume?).

Was also in a situation where, if I got close enough to even hit them (let alone trying to stand and channel AOE), I was constantly in danger of dying.

OK, yes, we were outnumbered, but it was still ridiculously awkward, IMO.

On completely flat ground, it would probably have been easier, but it’s not even like it was on a hill – it was just on the almost flat area between the garrison and the bay.

Eurantien.4632:

All I get is, “Eura, get on your ranger!”

They’re not talking to anyone in particular, in the examples I gave – they’re either talking to all rangers in a zerg group, or about themselves on ranger.

Yeah, I just constantly hear “get off your rangers and onto x, y, or z class”, “I can’t command, I’m on my squishy ranger”, “I don’t see the point in ranger”, “ranger sucks” and so on, from WvW commanders .

So, not just from random players, with some kind of irrational ranger hatred – from commanders, who know what they’re talking about.

Anet really need to work on it.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

The guy playing Ranger has no clue, playing a build designed to be terrible by someone else, never having played it before and is generally a bad player, just look at him go.

Honestly, the pet has nothing to do with that fight, the other skills are by far the limiting factor, even so, those pets are bad choices and nobody uses those.

Sure, Ranger has some serious dramas, but putting all of them into 1 build and making out its the norm is absurd. Ranger can decimate any class 1v1 when played well with a decent build.

I think you’re missing the point.

The point was that they both tried their best to give each other the worst build they possibly could and the ranger build either “won” as the worst build, out of the two bad builds; or, alternatively, it was found that ranger is more badly affected by a bad build.

Obviously, that finding isn’t in isolation, though – one could be a better player than the other, or could be less flustered by the unfamiliar class and build than the other.

Also, one class could very well just be, inherently, worse and/or less intuitive to play than the other (bad build, or not).

But, the point is that that was the point of the exercise, either way.

I play(ed) a hunter in WoW and have played most of the other classes in WoW at max level (to one extent, or another) and hunter in WoW is definitely significantly more forgiving to play than ranger in this (even though it is definitely not the most forgiving, especially in PVP).

For one thing, in WoW, rangers are just permanently ranged now – there is no trying to melee (badly) on them, anymore.

Another thing is that hunter in WoW wears mail (which is between plate and leather); whereas rogues wear leather.

There is good reason for that design choice – they didn’t just make an extra armour weight for a laugh.

Whereas, in this, rangers and thieves are (obviously) both in leather.

Also, since the changes to talents etc., in WoW, it is just far harder (if not impossible) to make a bad build, on any class.

suffish.4150:

There really isn’t any of the toxicity that people mention in lfg-made dungeon groups.

With respect, you can’t talk for everyone.

You, apparently, haven’t experienced many bad things – that’s obviously great for you – but that doesn’t mean everyone else is making it up.

xarallei.4279:

I think the amount of people that “hate” outfits is largely exaggerated. A loud minority.

I know.

Some people are just on here, permanently, saying the same things 20 times a week.

A few people saying something, repeatedly, is not the same as most people thinking something.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating – if outfits sell, they will keep making them.

I, mostly, like them.

Yes, I would ideally like to be able to break them up and use all the individual pieces, as well, but they are still really good for levelling and (presumably) for covering up armour weights you are less fond of the look of.

I’d be better off with a sub every month than the gemstore.

Based on the amount I have spent, so far (in 3.5 months), I could have played WoW for almost 3 years.

That is, partly, why I feel I have a right to say what I do and don’t like about the game, as much as I like, whether some people on here like it, or not.

maha.7902:

you didn’t bother because you couldn’t be bothered, not because “you knew X thing would happen”, don’t start throwing around the I told you so bull, and go slink off to whatever other game you would rather play.

No, you’re wrong.

Check my previous posts, I actually said I thought that would happen.

Or, what I actually said to someone, who was asking what they should do at endgame, was something along the lines of “…or you could make your own groups, with your own requirements and let me know how that goes – because, my guess is that they will completely ignore the description and will join and rage at you and/or will kick you from your own group!”.

I can’t remember exactly how I phrased it, but it was something to that effect.

Doesn’t surprise me, at all.

This is why, when I complained about the boring skip>permastack>melee only playstyle and people told me to make my own groups instead, I didn’t bother.

I just knew exactly what you describe would happen, if I did and I don’t need it.

aspirine.6852:

If i would ever stop wvw it’s because of the drops. Or rather the lack of drops, Anet is so afraid of loot that it’s non existent in this gamemode.

I know.

I don’t get it?

Why not reward people the same for every game mode?

Blizz kind of do the same with PVP – I don’t get that, either.

I don’t even think they should be rewarding people for killing other players, TBH, as that encourages mindless farming.

But they should be rewarding them well for doing objectives properly; especially defending.

IDK how to feel about that.

I think it’s good if it means that, whatever game-play mode you are involved in, you get equal rewards.

I think it’s worrying if it means that, if you don’t participate much in PVE and only do, say, WVW, you will only get one new armour set per armour weight…

Not that I wouldn’t like to do more group PVE, but I just don’t like the way it’s done in this game, so far.

Obviously, it’s good for us if all players will be able to access armour sets via playing the game, rather than having to buy them, but will that actually be the case?

Immensus.9732:

I know a good amount of players that still play the game, and when they first started all they wanted to do is WvW. no wonder since its concept (fantasy setting massive scale pvp) is something good. But many of just stopped WvWing including myself. I feel like doing the same over and over and nothing excites me any more. Why is that? How is it possible such a fun concept to feel like chore for so many pvp lovers ?

I haven’t given up yet, but I’m close to it.

First of all, you’re mainly just following a commander, which has somewhat limited appeal.

No offence to (most of) the commanders, they’re mostly doing a pretty good job, under the circumstances.

But, even if you’re OK with that, which I mainly am (kind of), then there is all the corruption.

As it’s a 3 world thing, as opposed to a 2 world one, that opens the door to unscrupulous people making deals and controlling outcomes.

The two other worlds are, intentionally, joining forces against my server, ATM.

You watch them and they are sometimes, literally, on top of each other and not fighting each other, at all.

It’s ridiculous, because even though my server did seem stronger than the other two, when I first started playing, it was (obviously) never twice as strong.

So, inevitably, we are now losing all the time, as it’s constantly 2 worlds vs 1.

If games aren’t made to be fair and properly policed, so they remain fair, of course most people stop playing them.

Elizabeth Reed.9173:

I also experienced the same problems when I returned after several months. I was able to turn things around by upgrading all my gear to ascended. This has made an enormous difference. I run full zerker(thief) and am able to withstand a great amount of punishment. But I am also able to deal a tremendous amount of damage – at will. I can wipe 90% of the players on the field from casters to guardians. When I’m outnumbered I just disappear in a puff of smoke :-)

Yeah…

People try to claim that gear doesn’t make much of a difference, in this game, but I’m not buying that, at all.

Even ascended jewellery and accessories help a lot, so I bet full ascended gear makes a huge difference.

What people seem to forget, when they say it doesn’t make much of a difference, is all those times when you’re hanging on by a thread, with 10% health left, vs being in a downed state/dead.

Even relatively small differences can make a big difference when it comes to a life and death situation.

Oh and yeah, thief does seem pretty OP, to me (in a 1 on 1, or more likely a 2 on 1, situation!), despite all their pitiful whining about rangers…

No offence to you – you seem like an honest thief.

The main thing, as far as I can see (after getting to level 80) is get soldier gear – makes a massive difference.

WvW is laggy (I’m personally, generally, on something ridiculous, like 4 or 5 fps, in a really big zerg on zerg situation), so even if you are really used to your class and weap abilities etc. and have good reflexes, you will still need survivability stats on gear to try to counter that.

Then it’s positioning in relation to the commander – melee on top of him and ranged. generally, behind.

After that, it seems to be about playing the “right” classes, although I’m just ignoring that and waiting for Anet to sort out issues with imbalance, because that is only fair.

I get that a well balanced group is good, but I figure that us all playing the same three, or four, classes isn’t the answer, as it will just make them think they can ignore the others.

Forum bug.

15 chars.

Honestly, I would change it to a multishot type thing, where you don’t have to ground aim, or have line of ground sight (just normal line of sight).

There again, given that a blade of grass, or an almost imperceptible undulation of the ground terrain can cause an obstruction, that would need to be sorted out first, so we didn’t just waste the CD, all the time.

Did some WvW today and was greeted, almost immediately, with “ranger suck” from the commander.

Asked him if he meant me, or the other ranger in the group, he just said “all ranger”.

So, I said “the class, or everyone who plays ranger?” and he just said “all ranger” again.

Seriously, what are you even supposed to do with that “information”?

I said “tell anet that, not us”.

Huggywuggles.2814:

Compared to WoW? “OMG U SKRUB! U SUK!” or “GDIAF!” or “I hope u die of cancer!”

I was told to “Kill yourself IRL.” in WvW chat, in this game.

I had said nothing offensive.

…and I’m not even going to repeat what certain people have said in TS3 (and I’m not referring to swearing a bit, here, which is pretty normal) .

There are also some very nice people who say hi and inv me to groups.

But, then there were in WoW, too.

About the same as WoW, I would say.

Good and bad people (and everything in between).

For example, if you accidentally do a speedrun dungeon, as a new player, without meaning to (in a group where someone else joins one, or whatever), a lot of people are pretty obnoxious.

Also, whereas some less than pleasant people may be scared to be openly rude in chat, they obviously don’t have the same problem in TS3, where they think they can say what they like.

If you do WvW, you will probably encounter that.

Ferguson.2157:

and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys’ games and books."

Not sure whether I should be highly insulted, or mildly flattered?

Daywolf.2630:

Entellex.3082:

Would switching from a AMD to a NVIDIA graphics card make any kind of difference?

er not at all if you are running the latest generation of graphics cards, should both be overkill. If you are talking about an older generation of cards and that is all your system can run and thinking of switching brands within that generation, may as well smash the system to pcs and get a new system. That’s the price of playing modern casual themepark mmo’s tied to item shops, if you can’t afford a system to play the lolgraphics intense game, likely not willing to spend huge $$$$$$ in the item shop.

IDK about that.

A lot of people prefer to play games on laptops, for example.

It’s far more comfortable, for one thing.

Doesn’t mean they won’t ever buy anything from a cash shop.

Also, in my experience, a lot of people who spend a lot on one thing, like computers (or cars, or mountain bikes, or jewellery, or handbags, or whatever…), often don’t tend to have any cash left for anything else!

So, it’s actually a false assumption to assume that, just because someone can afford one thing they can, automatically, afford everything else.

Or that, just because someone doesn’t spend a fortune on one thing, it doesn’t mean they won’t spend on anything else.

I don’t normally like it when people say to people “Just play the class you think is so OP/ easy, then”,

As I realise, more than anyone, that it is not just about how easy a class is, or isn’t; it is about how fun it is.

However, in this case, I’m the one who is going to say it, here.

Because Ranger IS fun, so that part isn’t an issue.

So, if you think it’s also easy/OP, why don’t you just play it yourself?

Seriously, these threads are all the same, on every forum, for every game.

Made (and agreed with) by the type of people who only ever play classes they have been specifically told are OP; because they simply cannot handle the fact that they will die in a game, even occasionally.

Games companies should look only to the people who choose to play the classes that are, generally, considered to be underpowered and/or who don’t switch to the new meta, all the time, for honesty.

GROMIT.7829:

Rangers are an old/out of date and redundant class/proffesion type.

Just delete it and be done with it for goodness sake.

“Old/out of date”?

How are they “old/out of date” any more than any other class in a fantasy game like this?

Ridiculous.

Hunters/Rangers are one of the most popular classes (where they are available) in games like this, especially for newer players, partly due to the pet.

…and not just newer players, either – there are a lot of established players who only really enjoy playing hunters/rangers.

Admittedly, most of them probably don’t play this game (or don’t play it for long), as Ranger is such a relatively bad class, here.

Which is why threads like this are so ironic…

Most of them go back to WoW, I would imagine? Where it is pretty mid-pack in PVP.

That doesn’t mean they should be deleted here, though.

You don’t delete a popular class, even if it isn’t as popular in your game, as it is in games where it is done better.

You make it better in your game and/or you (re)design your game, so it’s more flexible and accommodating to a wide range of classes, playstyles and weapon types etc..

I have a new laptop and still get stupid lag and 4fps in WvW, quite often (but not always), on any graphics settings.

The fact it varies, in similar in-game situations, makes me think that, outside of certain set parameters, it’s less about the PC and more about the time of day, or night, you’re playing.

Lunar Sunset.8742:

Quick OP, name yourself “Tree Kitten”!

Exactly what I was thinking.

Tree Kitten is cute.

This thread is a joke.

Or, at least, I hope it is…

Donari.5237:

/blinks
Longbows are too thin? Egad. And here I’ve been upset by how many of them are huge clunky things that I can’t imagine lifting one-armed to rapidly fire arrows from. Not to mention they don’t look like they could flex worth a darn, which is fairly important in archery.

I love the Daydreamer Longbow. It will definitely be one of the three Daydreamer skins I get. I just have to decide on the other two before I commit my tickets >< I get so paralyzed by choice, sometimes.

My guess is that he feels that the centre of them is a little too narrow, as opposed to the ends.

They do tend to be narrower in the centre than the shortbows, even though they’re longer.

They could be slightly more substantial in the middle, like the short bows and then tapering and slightly more curling, towards the ends.

Yeah, they’re lovely – like Labradorite.

Firelysm.4967:

I agree, Daydreamer set in general looks the best so far! BUT, i can’t get over myself here.. and i have to express myself, why are last 4 Longbow releases so CHEAP and BORING looking, so THIN that what ever effect you add, its not even visible?

TL;DR: PLEASE, show some love to Longbow, and spend 5 more min while designing them, because they are horrible :S

EDIT: Just look last 4 weapon releases of LONGBOW, it’s a joke..

Crimson Lion one isn’t thin, to be fair.

Although, even with that, the shortbow is a prettier design, IMO.

Only problem is the short bow cuts into the back of your char’s head, as you run.

They should angle them slightly more so the end goes above the shoulder; like the longbows’ ends do.

A lot of following and stacking…

Follow my leader (karma trains) in WvW and dress-up.

You could run WvW on your own, but then you will be ganked by small groups of thieves; or in a small group, but then you will be mown down by the opposition’s karma trains.

You could run dungeons, except most groups will expect you to skip, perma-stack and melee, which I guess you might enjoy if you are that way inclined, but it is an acquired taste I will never acquire.

You could make your own groups, with your own requirements and let me know how that goes…

My guess is that a bunch of people join and then rant at you and kick you for not skipping, stacking and meleeing, but I could be wrong. xD

You could try soloing some, but as you don’t outlevel them, it’s not easy.

World bosses are fun for about 5 mins, then it becomes boring, as it’s just following a train (again…).

World completion is OK, if you’re a completionist (I’m not).

Crafting, if you enjoy that (I don’t).

People farm in Silverwastes and stuff, apparently.

On the whole, I would recommend working IRL, buying gems to buy pretty stuff from the gemstore and then standing around in Divinity’s Reach playing the harp.

Or just accepting that the best part of the game is the levelling and exploring part and go elsewhere for (most) other things.

Of course, this is just my opinion – you may love some, or all, of it.

I hate crafting.

It’s not how I would have designed it, but what can you do?

I think there are more than enough weapons, already.

Where I think the game falls short, is that they’re not all created equal.

So, say I would like to play a longbow and shortbow combination, as Ranger; tough, because it’s not the “meta” (or anywhere near it).

I think they’re pretty gorgeous, TBH.

Lovely colours and design and a subtle effect.

However, they’re currently far too expensive (on the TP), IMO.

I don’t see why a weapon on the TP should cost more than one in the gemstore and £7 or £8 seems like more than enough to me.

Plus I’m kind of weighing up my future in the game, so buying stuff (especially overpriced stuff) does seem a bit daft.

Hannelore.8153:

mcwurth.2081:

please no, if you want to marry other virtual characters it might be time to take a break from the game or go play a total different game. (e.g. second life or something)

Hundreds of players play with their IRL partners and would like this functionality. If you can’t handle others’ relationships, maybe don’t be in a social game.

Why though?

I would never marry my boyfriend in a game.

There again, I haven’t married him IRL, either.

EdgarMTanaka.7291:

AreeSoothsayer.1068:

Welp, I’m in. The mobs are a ton easier and really… after all this time, not a single new pet.

Some say it is too hard and some say it is too easy. As Vayne said, go to silverwastes for harder content. Do Aetherpath in Twillight Arbor, do Tequatil and/or Evolved Jungleworm (Tripple Trouble) or do Fractals up to level 49 (Rumor goes that 50 is easier).

About the pets… Eh isn’t 46 pets enough? That’s more pets than any other MMO’s I know of, just from the start.

You don’t know of WoW, then?

http://www.wowwiki.com/Stable_master

You can store 55 pets, in total (5 that you can call and another 50 at the stables).

….and there are, I think, 52 pet families and each family contains multiple choices of species and colours.

Not that I am really complaining about the number here – WoW is an older game, so it will tend to have more pets.

But, I do think they should keep adding them gradually, here, if possible.

Palador.2170:

That’s stuff coming in the expansion, we don’t have all the details on most of the elite specs yet.

The one for ranger is “druid”. It uses a staff, and appears to still have the pet. That’s about all we know about it.

I don’t really get the connection between druids and rangers?

To me, they’re completely different things.

SlyDevil.3952:

heartless.6803:

I hate how this game does dungeons, I hate skipping things I hate stealthing past things.

You do realize mandatory and voluntary have different definitions for a reason?
You have the option to stealth past things, if it was mandatory, the mobs would not be so easily killable, or just invulnerable.

He, or she, pretty obviously means the way the players have worked out how to maximise efficiency, by doing that.

Obviously, it’s not literally mandatory, as far as the game is concerned, but if everyone else in your group thinks it is (and insists you do it, too), is pretty much is, to all intents and purposes.

I wouldn’t have thought threads like this would be allowed on here.

“Spirit of Halloween” (whatever that is supposed to be, exactly?) or not.

Harper.4173:

It doesn’t matter if it’s real difficulty or false difficulty as long as it keeps players in the game.

Of course it does, because not everyone is taken in and/or is happy with the situation.

So, it will significantly reduce potential sales/continued sales if some, or most, of the players can see the truth.

Even if a game appears to be selling well, despite some people seeing its “difficulty” is due to its flawed design (rather than true, well designed, difficulty), that just means the same game would sell even better if that wasn’t the case.