Xhalvia.5029

Quit your jibber-jabber, Taimi is alright boi.As far as characters go, she is one if the best.

Havn't played it yet myself, but the general consensus here is that it's too short, lacks content, and given the length of time in between the last release, what they delivered was too small. That and a hoard of gem sales to go with the lack of content. Ok I see now. Yeah, perhaps it's a bit too small of a content patch.Personally I would have liked to have seen more collection achievements, but that's just me. This is a valid argument and one of the problems most MMOrpgs have.GW2 combats this in a smart way with dailies that force players into the old maps... but I think it needs a little bit more than just "do 3 out of the list of 4 things to complete dailies" which can be done in about 10 min. Other games and I will use WoW as an example cause I've criticised it enough does not do this and its constant expansion has led to anything that has come before the current content absolutely obsolete. But saying that I do not believe halting any new content is a bad thing.It's just a matter of balance in the end of the day.

This map is great.I dont understand what the deal is with some people. You can never please everyone I suppose. That being said, would have been nice for a full on expansion but I'm eagerly awaiting the next living world episode.

Cheers Rubi :+1:

Not really.You see, I can present a decade worth of observational evidence over a multitude of games which all share the same system and all share the same observations.No matter what, you can't possibly dismiss that. In fact say there there is no basis is a little insulting, not to me but to anyone who has brought this up.(And that's a lot of people, I can literally point at google and search for any game with the same system and find the same responce) And your side of the argument can't really produce anything other than statistical fallacies which only work in a optimal environment or by citing that the top 1% of players can climb so everyone else can... So I can't really agree to "agree to disagree".I must say though, you have been the most rational of the deniers in some aspects.

This is a deceptive fallacy.In an ideal scenario, a 50% winrate does deceptively indicate that it's doing a good job.But it's not, when you consider the sheer quality of matches especially in recent years it all falls appart revealing an obvious attempt to force the 50%. This is exactly what it's doing.At this point in the life of MMR/ELO systems which spans over a decade long is that there is no doubt that the system does rig matches. Saying that's its from a "purely statistical pov" does not make what you say credible.Using fallatious statistics it's the most common form of deceit. When I say that though I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you of being deceitful. I just think you have heard this lie so many times you believe it to be true and that's how this falsehood spreads.

This is all I have ever wanted as well.I've not played sphp much but played many many other games and I too remember a time when pvp was actually fun.

MMR/ELO matchmaking in a nutshell.It's to literally try to force you into a 50% win rate. The warrior you speak of is what system tries to give you in an attempt of artificial difficulty.Mix this with players who just don't care and are farming pips to get money from chests.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level? If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself. Thats reasoning can be described as correlation at best. Calling it "proof" is nothing short of make-believe.One sided matches can have multiple causes. The very snowball-y meta we currently have (where comebacks are very, very hard to make) could serve as one possible explanation. At least a gathering of observations made across a multitude of games from countless players that use the same system while they all follow the same pattern is better than the feeble and tired response of "nothing is wrong with the system" while telling people who are witnesses and victims to these systems to "your team is not to blame, learn to carry' git gud scrub"

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level? If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself.

I'm sorry no.People like you need to open your eyes.This is not the only game that uses an MMR/elo based matchmaking system, far from it. And each and every game that uses this system is criticised in the exact same way, at some point you have to admit that there is some truth behind the criticism. Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.Another criticism is the better you do worse your team get, this is shared throughout every single game that uses this system.So stop lying to yourself and ask if it's actually real in face of the evidence or that it's one hell of a coincidence. Yes, a very small % of players do go above this 50%, but they are either incredibly talented and they usually duo or they are rigging themselves by match manipulation.

/sighBut with what I'm suggesting you could easily just change you name to what you would like to known as... which in all probability would be same as Discord.........Or...yano...with Discord you can currently change your display name without problem...

I myself have started a new guild, the aim of the guild since I'm an experienced player is to create a welcoming and friendly environment for new and returning players.I did this because as I've played though the game myself I found it very hard to interact with other players and learn the game. The guild has been a huge success so far, many of my guild members are grateful that I have taken my time to help them out and create an environment where they are taking their journey guild-wise from the very begining. But this has come with some problems.Not only I but the guild members are easily confused with trying to keep track with who is who within the guild, especially when players change characters or interacting in the guild chat. I've done as much as I can to come up with a solution, the method I've been using is to add everyone onto my friends list and assign a nickname to what they would be preferred to be called.But it does not solve the guild chat solution.The only method I've implemented is to have all my characters start with what I would like to be called to be easily identified but ofc I'm the only one to do such a thing and I dont expect other people to do the same. There is no mistake to say that this is a problem, perhaps not to completely qveteran players but I assure that it is for newer players.

This is a reasonable alternative.

Honestly, I'm sorry if this comes off as rude.But do people like you read and understand what has been written? I have explained extensively and and at multiple length exactly that other players are unhappy with their current Display name and this is a case of "killing 2 birds with 1 stone" because the guild/friends part is to be easily identifiable in the text box and guild/friends list. Honestly, I dont mind a diffrence of opinion backed up with actual criticism but it's now getting ridiculous when people like you share ridiculous thoughts when you have clearly not read what has been written.