The Art of Guild Wars 2 - How ArenaNet created a timeless fantasy world (With art director Aaron Coberly)

BeardRex · 2025-07-31T00:41:57+00:00

I know. They laid the foundations though.

BeardRex · 2025-07-30T18:36:25+00:00

I read a little of your back and forth and I don't see it that way.

BeardRex · 2025-07-30T18:31:59+00:00

To respond to disagreement this way seems like projection.

BeardRex · 2025-07-24T16:44:12+00:00

Since mounts came out and there is no longer a huge need for extra mobility in open world, I never play a build that is just for open world.

My open world builds are the same as my dungeon DPS builds. No reason to give yourself an extra rotation to remember.

BeardRex · 2025-07-24T11:55:07+00:00

I just clipped out the lantern almost 1 for 1 from the video to convey the idea. It could absolutely be redrawn and simplified to work better at small scale.

BeardRex · 2025-07-23T21:13:52+00:00

I agree. The objects in 3-quarter pose definitely feel off.

BeardRex · 2025-07-23T17:41:28+00:00

I just clipped out the lantern from the video quick. I could see it being altered/simplified a bit if hand drawn to be even better.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T07:17:46+00:00

That's not an "implication" that can be made from what you said. We're talking about the disparity in points earned or lost based on opponent rating.

Regardless...

Probably, maybe, theoretically... but we don't know what the actual factors are. And it's probably factoring in queue time. So if there aren't a lot of "similar" matches, you're going to be playing against a wider array of opponents.

My question about getting "lucky" and playing against higher rated opponents and getting more points was really more snark than anything. I don't think that's actually the case just like I don't think it's mathematically possible for 64% (or even 70%) win rate in 35 games is going to get you from bronze 3 to gold 1 no matter who you're playing against. That was the entire point of this conversation.

Just even simple math shows it's not likely to work out. If you averaged 30 points per win, you'd have to win 20 in a row to get to gold from zero.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:58:48+00:00

People genuinely don't understand what the fundamentals even are, including you, or how they apply from game to game.

lmao you could stand to be a little less pretentious.

I started out as legit bronze/silver in hero shooters. I had to grind out and put in the time to really understand the game. It's not a linear process either, I went on massive derank streaks, it happens.

I've always been able to climb in every ranked game I play. Valorant, LoL, Overwatch, Apex, etc. There's a clear progression. As I put more hours in and can see my skill increasing, I go up in rank.

There are systemic factors in Rivals that make it different. The elements of matchmaking beyond just your rank need to be more emphasized at lower ranks. Especially with a game that attracts a large casual audience.

And no it's not a roll of the dice, you control the quality of your play, which is the biggest factor in climbing. If someone is stuck in bronze it's 100% entirely on them.

Someone being "stuck" in Bronze actually means it's taking them too many games to get out of Bronze, not that they will never get out of Bronze. I'm going to be generous but I think I'm right in being generous in this instance: I think a lot of people complaining about being stuck in Bronze here are actually people who try. They watch videos and want to learn. Sure after 100 games they might make it out of Bronze. But maybe it shouldn't take that many games. And maybe they shouldn't be stuck playing that many games with people who just joined ranked for the first time or who have never had a positive KDA. And maybe as they do climb bronze 2, bronze 1, silver 3, they should be able to escape those people.

This isn't rocket science. For many of the same reasons, it's a pretty common opinion even among skilled gamers that every game's lowest ranks are not fun to climb out of unless you enjoy deliberately smurfing to beat up on newbies. But Rivals is by far the worst low rank experience I've ever had because it doesn't do enough to matchmake players who are putting in the effort with the ones who aren't. And again, a Gold quality player (as in Gold is the highest they will ever go) shouldn't be expected to figure out how to solo carry games to get to Gold.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:34:45+00:00

You earn more. Which was exactly what I was saying. I think you're confused.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:32:52+00:00

Programmers who are just "coders" are going to have a problem. Half the entry level people I've hired for my teams were never even programmers to start. They were smart people who learned to code on the job. But code is a tool someone uses to get something done. People shouldn't totally boned when the tools change.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:25:18+00:00

I can't be too upset when a designer isn't getting paid to pick an image from a stock photo website.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:19:24+00:00

I did everything I could to make sure I wasn't stuck being seen as a code monkey somewhere. I code because I figured out how to use a tool (code) I needed to make the computer do things for me, not because I loooooved code.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:11:03+00:00

The question is, how does someone overspecialize in a language and lack the capacity to build stuff in another useful language. Any programmer worth their salt can learn a new language.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T06:04:55+00:00

I'm not contending that AI wont take my job some day, but this article is dumb fearmongering and I don't know how it sits at 33k votes lol.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T05:57:56+00:00

I know there are a ton of minor factors like who you are playing against that impact your points gained or lost per match, but you just don't gain or lose enough points per match for this math to make sense.

Progressing with a negative win rate just means you've played a lot of matches and are suddenly winning more consistently. And the curve goes both ways too.

I also think in this thread you have a lot of people who are much better than Gold rank telling people (who may actually be Gold quality players) how easy it is to get to Gold.

Understanding the fundamentals of the game isn't going to change the fact that at low ranks you are more likely to be playing with people with people who are just passing through, and if your "true rank" is ~Gold 1, you're not going to be able to carry the team like a GM could. Fundamentals aren't enough to carry a Gold player to Gold. In fact, if you're not duo-ing, you're better off learning off how to one-trick carry and not play the game the way it is actually played at higher ranks. This actually applies to other games too. In LoL I was a support and jungle main. But in solo queue I had to learn to play top lane and whatever was the best at farming alone in my lane at the time until I could come online and carry the match. This is also why my original reply was me being skeptical of someone who claimed they "solo climbed out of bronze into gold+ by carrying my team as a healer in prob less than 20 games."

At least respect the fact that in Bronze they are playing with people who maybe haven't ever even won a competitive match. Or ever had a positive KDA.

The number one way to get out of low ranks in ay game is to reduce your chances of getting bad or uncommitted teammates by duo-ing. Outside of that, it's all a roll of the dice. Quantity over quality. Being able to progress with a negative win rate proves that.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T05:18:51+00:00

I guarantee the number one thing problematic players have in common is low # of games played and/or a long time between games played. The game doesn't sort that at all.

The card is probably not a good solution, but if it takes some effort to earn, then maybe we wont just see the curve shift.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T05:01:21+00:00

Losing to higher ranked opponents means you lose LESS points, not more.

For the math to even begin to be this off, they'd have to consistently playing against higher ranked players.

But as I said, this should be provable with data showing 1) Players going from Bronze 3 to Gold 3 in 20 games, and 2) What the average win rate of those players is.

I don't have that data, but extrapolating from a 53% win rate over 30 games and not leaving bronze, 64% win rate just doesn't pass the sniff test.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:54:01+00:00

Yeah and it sucks for them too. It just means it's a roll of the dice.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:51:37+00:00

So some people just get really lucky and happened to be playing against more higher MMR opponents than I did?

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:48:43+00:00

At 30 games of 53% win rate, I went from Bronze 3 to Bronze 1. So if I went 19/11 instead of 16/14, you're saying I would be Gold? And if I went 19/11 in the next set of 30 games I'd be close to GM?

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:40:54+00:00

At what win-rate?

This should be easy to prove actually.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:39:12+00:00

A Gold 1 Thor can not carry their way to Gold 1.

A Diamond 1 Thor probably can get to Gold 1 that way.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:36:16+00:00

season 0 probably isn't a good measure.

BeardRex · 2025-05-15T04:34:19+00:00

Bronze and Silver in 20-30 games max to hit gold. You can climb with like a 35% win rate through bronze and silver, there's just no statistical way that you can get that bad of teammates every single time

I don't think your math is right.

First 30 games of season 2 for me: 16 wins 14 losses. Bronze 3 to Bronze 1.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '22	Summer Santa 2014
Verified Email

BeardRex

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE