Guild Wars 2

I personally have a problem with people who like to run into walls

Why do charge skills no stop on hitting an obstacle?
It behaves so that charges keep hitting an enemy if they are next to an obstacle, resulting in very big damage.
In effect, charge skills that hit opponents for their entire durations are the best damage skills in the game.
I don’t believe this is either immersive or working as intended!
Charge skills should hit a static enemy once, or multiples times only if the enemy is moving in the same direction as the charge.
Also they should be interrupted on hitting obstacles.
For example, I find it very silly in CoF1 that the first boss is just backed against the wall and charged to death by brainless warriors ..

The armor difference between light and heavy is 287. It’s not much.
I have played Ele zerker in melee in challenging content for quite a while, it is perfectly doable!
You just want to have enough EHP not to get one-shot too often ( I ran 30 water, but now i’m going to swap 4 zerkers pieces with low ratios to PVT for the same results: -10% dmg, + 27% EHP), use active defence, be a team player and you will be just fine.
Do not make PvE judgements based on CoF1.

Cool.

Does ANet plan on rewarding people for their skill rather than for mindless farm and achievements ??

My advice, and this is the best you will get, don’t read this forum!
Instead go and experiment by yourself, you will be much better at playing ele then!

Brainless water-arcane D/Ds complaining everywhere … sigh …
This patch is the very best we’ve ever had as elementalists!
If you fail to see this then you know very little about the class/game and you were just playing this brainless OP build without understanding anything, no offence!

Fresh Air is a very interesting mechanic that shows Anet’s initiative to move in a direction that I like a lot
I am still wondering if the ICD will start when you leave air or not (if not then you can spend 5s in air, switch, crit, instantly come back to air)

PinCushion.7390:

Zelyhn.8069:

Swim.6830:

Zelyhn.8069:

I speak mainly for PvE, so let’s see:
-Fresh air is awesome all around, it synergizes with lingering elements and reduces the need for arcana at the same time = build diversity
-Persisting flames: fury share was what made d/d-f very viable in PvE, now we can share fury in scepter and staff as well, and not just a bit! =build diversity
-Staff improvements =faster paced, damage
-bountyfull power: water traits no longer give you more damage than fire traits= build diversity
-10% crit damage on arcane spell (air trait) = awesome!

Yes there are still some useless traits, but many less!

The extra 10% crit damage is negligible… should be 20% extra at the least.

10% crit damage is really decent! and it comes at almost no cost: if you trait for damage then you necessarily have 30 in air, so plenty of room to choose this; then it’s just one utility slot for arcane wave, 10 points in arcane and you have your quasi-perma 10% bonus. That’s a 4% damage increase on a dps build, it’s just a good option to be able to choose when you have dps-checks

The buff you get lasts 15 seconds. Traited, the cooldown of Arcane Blast is 16 seconds.

Perma +10% Crit Damage.

15 != 16
That’s why I said quasi-perma

Something strikes me about the buff of weakness in PvE: it’s a nerf!
Before: 50% of non-crit attacks are glancing blows (50% damage) = 25% damage reduction if target had no crit chance (= 5% damage reduction if target had 50% crit chance and 50% crit damage bonus)
Now: 25% of all attacks are glancing blows = 12.5% damage reduction

Except:
-Stacking of weakness is now limited (I don’t get it though)
-PvE mobs/bosses have very low (if any) crit chances!
-Duration of weakness has been reduced by half!

It’s a trap !

It might have been merged

Swim.6830:

Zelyhn.8069:

I speak mainly for PvE, so let’s see:
-Fresh air is awesome all around, it synergizes with lingering elements and reduces the need for arcana at the same time = build diversity
-Persisting flames: fury share was what made d/d-f very viable in PvE, now we can share fury in scepter and staff as well, and not just a bit! =build diversity
-Staff improvements =faster paced, damage
-bountyfull power: water traits no longer give you more damage than fire traits= build diversity
-10% crit damage on arcane spell (air trait) = awesome!

Yes there are still some useless traits, but many less!

The extra 10% crit damage is negligible… should be 20% extra at the least.

10% crit damage is really decent! and it comes at almost no cost: if you trait for damage then you necessarily have 30 in air, so plenty of room to choose this; then it’s just one utility slot for arcane wave, 10 points in arcane and you have your quasi-perma 10% bonus. That’s a 4% damage increase on a dps build, it’s just a good option to be able to choose when you have dps-checks

I speak mainly for PvE, so let’s see:
-Fresh air is awesome all around, it synergizes with lingering elements and reduces the need for arcana at the same time = build diversity
-Persisting flames: fury share was what made d/d-f very viable in PvE, now we can share fury in scepter and staff as well, and not just a bit! =build diversity
-Staff improvements =faster paced, damage
-bountyfull power: water traits no longer give you more damage than fire traits= build diversity
-10% crit damage on arcane spell (air trait) = awesome!

Yes there are still some useless traits, but many less!

kaplis.7195:

Zelyhn.8069:

Actually this is a welcomed change!
And I guess that glyph of elemental powers will become instant now; with the buff to weakness this is more than good!

I’m actually kind of sad (i’m a hipster ) because i had a build with GoEP but now everyone will use it. Cast time was actually one of the biggest things i didn’t like about it. Soo, atleast we get something.

I tried GoEP before too but the ICD just killed me!

It’s obvious how awesome this new “Fresh air” trait is.
Now I would love to see something similar for fire!
Maybe Fire Attunement is recharged if you inflict 4 seconds of burning while out of this attunement? (ICD shared with fresh air?)
With lingering elements this would give you a perma fire attunement, which could make the flame barrier traits useful, etc…
Discuss!

Healix.5819:

Weakness currently stacks in duration, so only 5 stacks would mean it has a duration cap, though additional applications would just overwrite it. Since this doesn’t make sense, they probably changed it to stacking in intensity, like bleeding. That would mean 25% chance to fumble * # of stacks would be a max of 125% chance to fumble.

Yeah that’s what I am confused about: 125% chance?
or maybe it stacks geometrically?

Don’t you think I was being ironical ?

Anyway, can anyone give some explanations about the stacking?

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

weakness is still weak.

should be 100% fumble (deal 50% damage) always

Yeah, I read your post and then I realised it makes so much sense! It’s so obvious! How could I not see this? Weakness should be 90% damage reduction + 100% endurance degeneration and give you 3 ectos per cast as well!

A welcomed change!

Weakness: Changed from 50% fumble on regular attacks to 25% fumble on all attacks. Now only stacks up to 5 times.

Not being dependent on crit is great, it can now be useful to mitigate burst damage in PvP and can be used consistently in PvE.

I would like some clarifications on the stacking though. What is stacking? How is it stacking in intensity? Does it still have a 50% proc chance?

Actually this is a welcomed change!
And I guess that glyph of elemental powers will become instant now; with the buff to weakness this is more than good!

I have been very sceptical about ANet’s approach to balancing the elem in the past, but this upcoming patch is insanely well thought!!

Everybody is blinded by the fact they introduced a new condition haha, but look how awesome are the buffs to the elem!

-Build diversity: achieved
-Faster paced combat: achieved
-Removed useless traits: achieved

Please take a moment to look at the patchnotes and see how clever they are. I am impressed!

Link all capital city chat!

@ Onis
I believe I am being quite polite, even after all the irrelevant raging posts that were made without properly reading my OP!
Note that the discussion is pleasant now that moderators have skimmed aggressive posts, and that only people who put some thoughts into their posts contribute.

You may as well consider the fact that a lot of the raging post replies this thread got tend to proove my points :)

(Also if I was very honest I would tell you that I may have made my OP intentionally intriguing so as to pull attention to this matter which I consider crucial)

Ashen.2907:

You have supported my position that sometimes it can be morally wrong, and others not so. In your example of the joke it would not be morally wrong, in mine it would.

Your example using Germany falls a bit short of my statement in that the Germans believed that the presence of Jews was harmful, they were wrong.

My statement was that it is morally wrong to do harm to those not deserving of it, not that it was morally wrong to do what the recipient incorrectly thinks is harmful to them.

Many children think they are being treated in a harmful manner when a parent administers a scolding or punishment that will actually benefit, assuming the child pays attention to the lesson, them in the long run.

I do support the logic behind your initial example, but there is something I would like to clarify:
There is a difference between interpretation (similar to changing the words) and perception (the effect of these words).
Your example was more about perception than interpretation.
I think I agree that it would be morally wrong not to change a statement in light of potential harmful perception, but this is different from what I meant.

Can you give me an example of when it is morally wrong to not change a statement in light of potential interpretations?

My example is more about interpretation (as well I perception of course).
So the moral rule has not changed I believe.
This doesn’t mean that I am right, by the way, it just means that your initial example does not contradict my position :)

Jemmi.6058:

I believe you misunderstood my analogy.

The -ist at the end of elitist implies that you are discriminating against some based on the former part of the word

i.e.

Sexist / based on gender
Racist / based on race
Classist / based on what class one is
Agist / based on age
Elitist / based of how elite one is (based on skill)

Naturally this is not the case for any word that ends with ist; such as bioligist, physicist, altruist, assist etc etc.

However, I am not saying that Racism and Elitism operate in the same way or are in anyway related. I am simply saying that the word implies descrimination.

This act can occur both ways. It does not have to be an elite person being prejudice towards an inferior player. It can be an inferior player excluding a better player based on their skill. The only reason i can see this, is if that person expects the better skilled player to be ‘elitist’ simply because they are an ‘elite’ player, but that isn’t a given. The act is hypocritical, because the inferior player is acting elitist in this scenario.

However the technical definition is (which differs slightly from my interpretation)

e·lit·ist
/i?l?tist/
Noun
A person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.
Adjective
Favoring, advocating, or restricted to an elite.

Then we agree :)

Ashen.2907:

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

I mostly agree with you (I won’t blindly defend my position), but I would like to be more accurate:

I am in a movie theatre. I tell a joke with the punchline of, “Red!” I note that the person next to me overhears my exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought I had spotted a fire in the small crowded room.

-The person next to me interprets my words: they hear “red” so they think “fire”.
-I am aware of this potential interpretation before making the joke.

In light of this I should indeed be guilty: I knew that if I said “red” I could harm the person next to me.

If I say “red” I will cause harm, but this is only possible because the person next to me is interpreting my words, which is wrong. So in a way the person next to me is participating in the harmful action.

If I was a “nice person” I would then not say “red”. But that would mean accepting the wrongful interpretations. Accepting something wrong is not right ;) So I am in a moral dilemma.

Let’s put some Godwin into this.
The Jews in kitten Germany were aware of the fact that kittens perceived their existence as harmful to them. So if they were to avoid causing any harm to the kittens they should end their lives.
Obviously this is wrong; and it is wrong because the “harmful perception” of the Jews by the kittens is wrong in the first place.

This is a bit drastic, I admit, but you get my point: not altering a statement in light of wrong interpretations is not wrong.

[Edit: apparently the name of Hitler’s party is censored, read accordingly]

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Indeed, I meant “morally wrong” (as a reference to one of my previous posts).

So was I. It is morally wrong in some circumstances and not morally wrong in others.

I don’t believe morals change according to the situation.
Can you give me an example of when it is morally wrong to not change a statement in light of potential interpretations?
And by the way I believe that it is morally wrong to interpret statements :)

Xenon.4537:

I think what the OP is worried about is that no one is really concerned with improving their own skill performance within the game. Rather than learning to play better to overcome challenging content, they cry out for nerfs and beg for tank and spank content that they can practically afk through. This trend only serves to make the game more stale, boring, and pointless over time. It’s an atmosphere of cancer and decay.

Yes, this is a direct implication of what I mean!

Well you know, it’s not that easy to have 8 lvl 80s and master them all!

marnick.4305:

Zelyhn.8069:

marnick.4305:

xiv.7136:

Going into any room, anywhere, and just saying “I am better than you all” will make you rather unpopular rather fast.

He would be right though. He’s better than all of us at being a first class a—kitten.

Being the best is defined differently for different players. I never considered people with rank 14 in WoW “the best” because it came at the cost of things that are far better than r14, namely a life.

You have to differentiate the two: there is the player, and there is the person.
A r14 player in wow is likely the best player, but this makes no assumption about his personal life.

Being good at WoW was not a requirement for r14, however being bad at life was.

I would never dare to judge anyone’s personal life, I am a strong believer of the idea that all people and things are equal.
This does not prevent me from judging the skill of a player and ordinating it.

r14 factually required 2 continuous months of at least 14 hours per day played. Every single day. Missing a day meant delaying r14 by about a week. People with any hard RL requirements, even if only half a day every other week, were not able to get it. Time investment was literally the only requirement for r14. Being good was not part of the equation.

Right. Maybe talking about high arena ranking would be more relevant. I just hope you get my point.

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Indeed, I meant “morally wrong” (as a reference to one of my previous posts).

marnick.4305:

xiv.7136:

Going into any room, anywhere, and just saying “I am better than you all” will make you rather unpopular rather fast.

He would be right though. He’s better than all of us at being a first class a—kitten.

Being the best is defined differently for different players. I never considered people with rank 14 in WoW “the best” because it came at the cost of things that are far better than r14, namely a life.

You have to differentiate the two: there is the player, and there is the person.
A r14 player in wow is likely the best player, but this makes no assumption about his personal life.
I would never dare to judge anyone’s personal life, I am a strong believer of the idea that all people and things are equal.
This does not prevent me from judging the skill of a player and ordinating it.

Eladriel.7295:

And being a good player goes further than just skill at the game. It also depends on you as a player how you react to other players in the community.

No, these are two different things. When I talk about talent I mean skill. The behaviour of a player towards the community is tied to being a good person, not a good player.

The question is who is to blame: the person making the statement (ignoring the potential imterpretations) or the person interpreting the statement?
I see no moral reason why anyone should change their statements based on potential interpretations.
I can understand why would someone rush into interpretations, it is a defence mechanism, but is it right?

Both involved parties are responsible, imo. For me, I realized that regardless of my own opinions on the matter, the way I approached the topic was being perceived negatively by others. Some were even struggling with self-esteem issues, etc. Is it “my problem?” No, not really. But, if I am faced with a choice to either act in a way that makes me feel good while making another feel bad, or act in a way that enables and encourages both of us.. It is a no-brainer. It wont apply to everyone, perhaps even including yourself. But, my words were making some others feel bad, and just outright kitten ed some others off, and every reaction in between. I figured I could wait until every one didnt take things so personally, or make a minor change in my own approach. I chose the latter due to feasibility. In the end, I do feel it was the right choice, and I have ended up learning more from a stance of humility than I ever did when acting from a stance of superiority.

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong. I understand that it could be desirable to accommodate for the interpretations of course, but it doesn’t make it a more righteous approach.
It all comes down to personal preference.
As for me I am just flabbergasted by the outrageous interpretations and assumptions that the community is making, especially on this forum! Just look at the history of this thread…
So yes, I choose to not alter my statements and keep them blunt. I don’t want to call it a crusade, but it is my way of expressing my discontent.

Tuluum.9638:

Ill just start off with saying that I am kind of struggling to understand what you are saying throughout this post and also mention that I only speak for myself.

Yes! I know :)
I was writing on a mobile device, and the end result is very confusing.
That being said, thank you for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate this conversation.

I am going to repeat myself with a bit more details and accuracy. i really want you to understand what contrast I see between racism and elitism:

-Elitism: makes a statement of difference regarding a specific characteristic. This characteristic is determined and somehow measurable (size of a chair, etc). It has no implications for the other characteristics (no implication for the colour of the chair). The only conclusion that can be drawn from such statement is that the subject is more fit for a certain situation/activity that revolve around the use of the characteristic. This makes no assumption for any other situation/activity.
Example: a rugby player can be more useful to the team in the front line if he is heavy as opposed to the back lines if he is lightweight. This judgement on weight makes no assumption on how the player can pass the balloon, or how fast he runs. The guys in the front line may ask the player to go in the back line if he is too lightweight. This is a form of elitism: they want to have a consistent front line that is reliable, based on a specific characteristic. Should the excluded player feel bad? No: the judgement is made on a specific characteristic: it does not mean he is a liability to the team, it only mean he would be more efficient in an other situation than the front line.
Applied to the game: some players play at a high skill level. They want to progress together. Therefore a player of a lower skill level would be less adapted to their situation, so they exclude him. This judgement is based on a specific characteristic: skill level in a MOBA-MMO game. This exclusion does not imply that the player is a bad person. In fact it could very well be that this player is more casual and is better at playing the game in a less optimized fashion, centred around relaxing with friends, or maybe this player is a monster at strategy games!
The only “inferiority” involved in elitism is regarding the measure of a specific attribute of a person, not the person as a whole. It means “you have less of this” not “you are bad and should feel bad”.

-Racism: More than a statement of difference, it is a statement of inferiority. Instead of judging a specific characteristic it is the person as a whole which is judged. It is like elitism pushed to an extreme: the characteristic judged is ethnicity, which is not measurable and the judgement is therefore more of “this is bad” rather than “you have less of this”.

The key point is the measurability of the characteristic involved. I know that is it not easy to argue that game skill is measurable, but in a way it is (we can have this debate if necessary).

This is why elitism is not wrong for as long as it is done with respect, and it should not foster bad feelings.

You have done the first step towards becoming a good player: choosing what role you want to fulfil: pure damage deal / jack of all trades.
All classes can be jack of all trades and this denomination basically mean that you want to use all assets available to you. let me tell you this will not end well: most likely you will do a bit of everything, badly.
Being a damage dealer is much easier to build for, let’s see: you want to deal more direct damage, condition damage or a combination of both?
It is fine to want to be glass canon: you can just replace the defensive stats by offensive stats, it fits your ambition.
Second step: gear for the type of damage you want to do
Third step: choose your traits, experiment! Many build are viable and it has to reflect your playstyle. Never copy a build from any forum!
Final step: do NOT limit yourself to one weapon.
You have to know how to use the skills from all of your weapons, when to choose which, how to tweak your traits accordingly.
Once you have achieved this, choose your runes & sigils.

Have fun!

Hm, you are aware that arcane wave and arcane blast are always critical strikes right?
Also don’t you think going 30 fire in addition to 30 air is quite bad? Plus, you are using all of your 3 utilities for this combo!
And with full zerk you have like 11k hp and 18k armor…

Until they disclose drop rates and RNG formulas we can only speculate. They won’t disclose this information though, and anyway they stealth-tweak it every now and then. Just play the game how NCsoft wants you to play the game and you should be fine.
As for me, it also seemed to me that I was getting better drops if I came back to the game after being quite inactive

I was thinking about what would be the most deadly and efficient combo available to our profession.
By deadly and efficient I mean a combo that is quick and easy to do, hard to dodge, and also that limits your build the least (not too many deviations from the viable builds).

What I have come up with is the following:
*D/D
*Require Piercing Shards (IV water, reached in most builds): 20% damage on vulnerable targets
*Require Grounded (XII air, 10-20 points away from most builds): 20% damage to knocked down targets
*Optimal if at least 5 points in arcane for fury on attunement swap
-updraft [2s? kd]
-switch to fire
-burning speed [0.75s cast]
-cast fire grab [0.75s cast]
-switch to water during cast
-target gets hit by fire grab while in water attunement

To make sure that the target is under vulnerability, you may take shards of ice (water III) and cast some arcane spell right after switching to water for more damage and vulnerability.

It could hit pretty hard! Any thoughts?

Don’t rely on the patch notes .. they don’t even list half of the changes they do in there!

And people, he is asking about your opinion, so if you have one give him instead of saying that “it depends on the player” :o

(this kind of sentences are just as uselss as saying “this is just your opinion” in a debate zomg)

I suggest to link all capital city chats and integrate a portal for fractals in each capital city.
Also remove the inability to group someone who is not in range.

I would like to know what is the general strategy to deal with the harpies in the unidentified fractal.

Most people will just kill them 1 by 1 as they go forward, but this often results in a lot of deaths from kbs (even when using reflects).

I wonder if it is possible just to run past them.
I guess this should be done as a group. What do you think is the best way to go about this (with and without thieves)?

Yes I believe I understand you point, but correct me if you feel I don’t.

Perception aside, we have two different approaches:

1. This caracteristic of yours is inferior to mine, this caracteristic defines you as a person, so your person is inferior to mine on the whole.

2. This specific caracteristic of yours is inferior to mine, this caracteristic does not define you as a person, so you are not inferior to me as a person but we are different.

Both approaches make a statement of difference, but their implications are far from close!
The first one gives you no chance: you are defined as inferior (which implies thst you should feel bad), what ever the potency of your other caracteristics.
The second one makes no assumption about your other caracteristics, and is closer to a judgement of quantity rather than quality.
(Chair can have two different sizes, yet they are equal in utility: one suits adults and the other fits to children for example)

I agree that there is a thin line between the two!

Anyway we can all agree that human beings have differences. Stating one of these differences does not necessarilly contradict the idea that all humans are equal. But it could be interpreted as such, I agree.

As I see it the problem lies more in the interpretation of the statement of difference.
Why would people interpret some statements of difference badly when they accept most others? That’s a mistery to me! The question is who is to blame: the person making the statement (ignoring the potential imterpretations) or the person interpreting the statement?
I see no moral reason why anyone should change their statements based on potential interpretations.
I can understand why would someone rush into interpretations, it is a defence mechanism, but is it right?
Some things that are socially accepted are not always morally right.
In fact, it was socially accepted to be racist in kitten germany (Godwin the return), and I believe we can all agree it was morally wrong!
Also when this defence mechanism is expressed with aggressivity it is not helpful either :)

I would say there is a drastic difference between racism and elitism: racism implies a judgement of inferiority of a race, this is a wholistic approach. Racist people despise other races based on characteristics that are the e’ssence of this race. They hate what defines the people composing this race. On the contrary elitism implies a judgement on specific characteristics that do not define in themselves the persons that have them.
For example: i can judge your skill level and decide it is inferior to mine, but that foes not make you an inferior person in any way. It is like saying I am taller than you: it’s a statement of fact and you have no reason to feel bad about it. The caracteristic judged is determined and measurable. Racist people believe people in other races are inferior in themselves. Do you understand my point?

Scrambles.2604:

Zelyhn.8069:

Scrambles.2604:

Zelyhn.8069:

Being an elitist in a game is defined as having an above average skill and wanting to play only with people of equivalent skill.

My perspective on “elitism” comes mostly from vanilla WoW, where all the major theorycrafting and end-game strategic optimization was done by a guild called the “Elitist Jerks.” So, when i think of elitism, i think of in-depth min-maxing and best strats for encounters, etc.

If i were looking to play the best, efficient way possible, in a team-setting, then it would probably go without saying i would be happiest among like-minded players, who are also trying to optimize their gameplay.

So playing with people of equal skill could be a characteristic of “elitism” and i don’t see why that is a bad thing.

It’s only a bad thing if you are being a jerk about it.
It is also true that in my experience it is the most skilled people who are the least respectful to average players because of their high expectations.

Elitist Jerks forums were actually elitist: you could only become a contributor if you were approved by other highly skilled theorycrafters!

Well, it was their guild forums, but it was a great source for in-depth, detailed information about gameplay and builds. If i were EJ, I wouldn’t have wanted me posting on those forums either, haha.

So, the issue isn’t necessarily with players that try to be good at the game. The issue is that people have associated “bad manners” with “trying to be good at the game” and decided to start calling it “elitism.”

I guess it is my goal to advocate against this negative stereotype. It’s because of negative associations like these that exist, that “Elite” players, like myself, will never get access to useful tools, like Combat metrics/combat log parsing, Inspect features, etc, because people are so afraid of “bad mannered” players using them.

My friend, I couldn’t agree more!!!
And this leads me to my OP: due to the negative connotations of the word Elitist, or anything related to the will to perform better, it has become terribly difficult to find fellow “elite” players to party with!

As for metrics, I have resorted to asking my zerker warrior (arguably the highest dps) friends to count in how many auto attacks they can kill a training mannequin (no condi, no crit) and with this data you can make a spreadsheet to benchmark your damage output.
I have this spreadsheet and I would be glad to share it with who ever is interested.
It’s about time some decent TC is produced for this game!
There are quite some people on these forums who run tests and think a lot, I would be so glad to see a TC community growing! This way when actually challenging contrnt is released we will be prepared to face it! Also it is undeniable that making such information public would benefit the entire playerbase, which would then lead to more knowledgable people willing to face more difficult content and dive into the depth of the game! Wait maybe i am just dreaming a bit haha :)

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

Zelyhn.8069:

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

Scrambles.2604:

Tuluum.9638:

Scrambles.2604:

Elitism is only perceived as a negative quality to one that has no interest in striving to be “Elite.” The issue is “elitist” players and “regular” players both share and participate in the same level of content, even though they do not strive for the same level of success.

The issue isn’t the mindsets—you’ll never get rid of that. The issue is the level of content is accessible and participated in by two groups that don’t get along very well. And they shouldn’t be expected to get along— because they each play the game for different reasons and get different things out of it.

The only solution (besides altering game content) is to recognize that there are two divergent groups in the community and respect the fact that they play the game for different reasons. You’re not getting denied from a CoF zerker group because you suck, you’re getting denied because the people in that group aren’t just trying to beat the content, but do it the most efficient way possible.

I do not consider “elite” and “elitism” to be synonymous. One can be “elite” without being an elitist. Thats been pretty much my entire point with all of my posts in these types of threads

It was also the point of the post you quoted, but perhaps there is just some miscommunication. Someone doing something in the most efficient way possible may or may not be elite, and they may or may not be elitist.

I don’t want this to break down into an argument about semantics, but how do you define “elite” and “elitist?”

For me i consider being “elitist” simply the practice of being “the elite player” aka “high-end player” aka “the-best-you-can-be” You can be elitist without being rude and shoving it down peoples throats. It just means you strive for the top end, most efficient way of playing.

So, not necessarily the derogatory, “play my way, or the highway..” definition of Elitism you hear so often on these forums.

IMO,

elite
Generally speaking elite players are excellent (good skill, good strategy, willing to help, know mechanics inside and out, etc), and you can tell just by watching them. However, they are also humble, and in general decent people to be around.

elitist
On the other hand ‘elitists’ tend to be jackkittenes that arent worth their weight in kitten, and the ones that are actually good, get blown off anyway because of their attitude. You get so much further when you’re not a kittenhead.

These are not the definitions of either word

They are not the dictionary definitions, no. However, he asked ‘how do you define’ which asks for how I personally define the term. Not how someone else defines the term. Thus why I started it with ‘IMO’

You are being too literal. Also a definition is quite far from an opinion!

Scrambles.2604:

Zelyhn.8069:

Being an elitist in a game is defined as having an above average skill and wanting to play only with people of equivalent skill.

My perspective on “elitism” comes mostly from vanilla WoW, where all the major theorycrafting and end-game strategic optimization was done by a guild called the “Elitist Jerks.” So, when i think of elitism, i think of in-depth min-maxing and best strats for encounters, etc.

If i were looking to play the best, efficient way possible, in a team-setting, then it would probably go without saying i would be happiest among like-minded players, who are also trying to optimize their gameplay.

So playing with people of equal skill could be a characteristic of “elitism” and i don’t see why that is a bad thing.

It’s only a bad thing if you are being a jerk about it.
It is also true that in my experience it is the most skilled people who are the least respectful to average players because of their high expectations.

Elitist Jerks forums were actually elitist: you could only become a contributor if you were approved by other highly skilled theorycrafters!

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

Scrambles.2604:

Tuluum.9638:

Scrambles.2604:

Elitism is only perceived as a negative quality to one that has no interest in striving to be “Elite.” The issue is “elitist” players and “regular” players both share and participate in the same level of content, even though they do not strive for the same level of success.

The issue isn’t the mindsets—you’ll never get rid of that. The issue is the level of content is accessible and participated in by two groups that don’t get along very well. And they shouldn’t be expected to get along— because they each play the game for different reasons and get different things out of it.

The only solution (besides altering game content) is to recognize that there are two divergent groups in the community and respect the fact that they play the game for different reasons. You’re not getting denied from a CoF zerker group because you suck, you’re getting denied because the people in that group aren’t just trying to beat the content, but do it the most efficient way possible.

I do not consider “elite” and “elitism” to be synonymous. One can be “elite” without being an elitist. Thats been pretty much my entire point with all of my posts in these types of threads ;)

It was also the point of the post you quoted, but perhaps there is just some miscommunication. Someone doing something in the most efficient way possible may or may not be elite, and they may or may not be elitist.

I don’t want this to break down into an argument about semantics, but how do you define “elite” and “elitist?”

For me i consider being “elitist” simply the practice of being “the elite player” aka “high-end player” aka “the-best-you-can-be” You can be elitist without being rude and shoving it down peoples throats. It just means you strive for the top end, most efficient way of playing.

So, not necessarily the derogatory, “play my way, or the highway..” definition of Elitism you hear so often on these forums.

IMO,

elite
Generally speaking elite players are excellent (good skill, good strategy, willing to help, know mechanics inside and out, etc), and you can tell just by watching them. However, they are also humble, and in general decent people to be around.

elitist
On the other hand ‘elitists’ tend to be jackkittenes that arent worth their weight in kitten, and the ones that are actually good, get blown off anyway because of their attitude. You get so much further when you’re not a kittenhead.

These are not the definitions of either word :)

Being an elitist in a game is defined as having an above average skill and wanting to play only with people of equivalent skill.

I see the real discussion is finally picking up!
Whether you agree or diagree with me I really appreciate your constructive inputs, thanks :)

Silver Halliwell.4735:

Had one chance to get the fireworks viewed and then I have to go out of town for the weekend. Thanks for doing things on time as usual Anet. I expect you will remove this post like you do every other negative thread/post. I hope the delay was to add more RNG, add more DR, reduce drop rates, nerf farms and all those wonderful things you do to us players! Looking forward to your “deleted and infracted” mails on Monday! <3

+1

What am I saying… +100000000000