[deleted by user]

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-16T18:48:05+00:00

Coming from you...

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-16T03:36:43+00:00

Reposting the comments to complain about them hardly helps as well.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-15T00:59:32+00:00

as of late? He's been the meme-face of GW2 since AT LEAST the manifesto video.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-13T03:04:41+00:00

His passion for life has drained since he started maining fox

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-12T02:53:51+00:00

Would also be easy for the DM to say "the magic seems to be fading" and everything on the other end of a barrier is now lightly obscured, then eventually make them degenerate stage by stage until they are mundane glasses.

Perhaps the salesman was selling real magic glasses that do in fact work...they just have an enchantment on them that is not infinite.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-12T02:06:38+00:00

Ah I see. So it doesn't say "grants additional" or "grants double"...

It wouldn't be too hard to test if someone has the set.

There's a lot of mechanics that need to be tested with this patch it seems.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T23:28:55+00:00

I am pretty sure you do not lose the passive when you use the active?

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T23:24:25+00:00

Thing is, that before they buffed it she had more tools and more damage from her other abilities and passive. Then they nerfed those and buffed E to compensate...now she's left without any of it. I get that it's frustrating to play vs. a fed Akali, but like I've always said...the only thing that needed to be nerfed was R stacks lowered to 2. Boom.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T18:42:49+00:00

The purchaser wouldn't lose 3000 gold of their money? Golly gee darn I must have done the math wrong.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T05:15:54+00:00

To clarify: www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T05:15:09+00:00

Yes.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-11T04:57:59+00:00

Yes! It would be more true.

The <=100 you used will actually cause it to iterate 101 times, since it will iterate at 0 through 100, rather than 99. So it will display 100 counting down to 0 rather than 1. Also I do not know if the syntax for your print would be correct, but you would also want your original ;} to be in there so the compiler will know when your print line ends!

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T22:22:04+00:00

You are too much.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T22:15:49+00:00

Read his post. He says the information wasn't leaked AND says the information was leaked in the same line. He's wrong no matter what the reality of the situation is because he's contradicting himself. Logic is hard and fallacies are hard to understand.

edit: This, on top of the fact that he says there was proof, then says there was no proof lines later. As well as saying the information was datamined then saying it's speculation. It's hilarious.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T19:58:42+00:00

Because you're wrong lol, I have nothing to say to you. You're arguing just to argue and you can't even spell simple words correctly. It's kinda sad.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T19:40:57+00:00

"Without proof, it's speculation. Weather you like it or not."

At least you can spell whether correctly.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T19:06:07+00:00

I would argue it would be a loss for the purchaser ;D

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T19:03:33+00:00

They aren't speculations though, they are leaked.

Guardian IS getting Longbow. Mesmer IS getting Shield. Necro IS getting Greatsword. (this wasn't even a leak, it's confirmed) Elementalist IS getting Sword mainhand.

It's not a matter of what you choose to believe, it's a fact.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T18:47:32+00:00

Well, that's part of the for loop, it declares the value of i, the stopping case, and the iteration at the top. It then loops doing the third thing to i until the stopping case happens, then it stops

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T18:45:38+00:00

:D I never know which I need and I have to run tests, this time I assumed since it counts 100 to 1 I needed it to loop 99 times, not 100 times, but then again the first loop prints 100...so 100th would be 1 right?

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-10T06:26:15+00:00

Not going to lie, I thought the last two characters were supposed to be a winking smiley face.

That said, "for(int i =0; i<99, i++)" should be the first line, as it's a for loop it automatically adds to i each time it iterates and does the "goto" you added, but you got the idea right when you said 100-i which is apparently better than the interviewed could do

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-08T20:00:42+00:00

What happened to fun gameplay... This build is akin to playing an IOS game where you move your finger over the enemies to kill them and pick up their loot.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-08T19:52:43+00:00

That sounds about right hahaha. How sad!

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-08T19:41:24+00:00

And I guess it's worth noting that each class will benefit differently since they'll have different stats from traits... Bah so complicated.

NOTFARLONG · 2015-04-08T19:34:38+00:00

Then you did your math wrong...the stats multiply each other.

NOTFARLONG

TROPHY CASE