DeathPanel.8362
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by DeathPanel.8362
-
-
On 7/24/2023 at 4:06 PM, Izzy.2951 said:
And also if you clearly read the positions open for the new game they say "able to create understandeable code that can work widely". they also have a story now of making guides for certain code they make, to not have the same experience they had with old core dungeons which they cant touch anymore, or would require tons of investment.
And you don't think the old positions the previous people held had the same requirements?
In my job, I'm in a position to have interviewed people and I can tell you that there's a massive gap between written requirements and the candidates that show up or the candidates you settle for.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Izzy.2951 said:
So short answer: no, this is wrong. The pople that coded GW1 were old blizzard creators of battle.net, the people that coded gw2 were mostly new ppl that got hired to the company at that time, and the people that will code the new game are mostly people that are hiring right now. For not saying that most of the people that created gw2 are no longer at the company.
And what makes you think the new people coming in who presumably have less industry experience are going to create something better?
-
20 minutes ago, Lincolnbeard.1735 said:
GW2's engine is a modified GW1 one.
The new game is using Unreal 5 according to the job listings.Unreal 5 is good for graphics, but it's highly doubtful it'll be conducive to the large-scale wvw battles people are accustomed to in GW2.
GW3 with Unreal 5 will probably end up being a black desert clone.
-
On 7/22/2023 at 10:07 AM, Darkvramp.5640 said:
The current engine is garbage. It is a graphics engine, that doesn't access and use the graphics card like any other modern day engine, and instead uses your cpu instead. That would be the benefit of a new game. Something that would run well, and no more spaghetti code due to a decade of content slapped on top of itself.
You realize the same team that implemented the "garbage" code will be implementing the new game right? What makes you think a new game will be any different? The only real difference a new game will make is you have to buy all the microtransaction skins and account features again. Tech hasn't advanced far enough to justify a new engine. Any improvements would be marginal.
-
18 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:
Adding gear that makes you more powerful than if you dont get it is not vertical progression?
The reason "vertical progression" has negative connotations is because of ways it invalidates previous gear such as when level caps are increased in WOW forcing people to regrind every piece of their gear for the new level cap.
In this expansion, all your old gear will remain valid. You won't need to regrind any of them. There's a new gear slot and you're given a free relic per character above 60 in your account.
Even if you label that as vertical progression it lacks the attributes that make vertical progression bad.
Labels are just taxonomy. What really matters is what that label points to.
-
5
-
7
-
-
19 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:
Where do I pretend that there aren't bad changes? I even wrote about conservative check which I see as a positive. You're making stuff up.
First time? See what I was talking about now? Some people will simply hear what they want to hear regardless of what they were told.
The sad part is ANET didn't even promise any of that. Just like what they did to your post they took ANET's words and translated it internally into what they want to hear and are now holding ANET to their made-up head canon promises.
-
3
-
4
-
-
29 minutes ago, WRay.2391 said:
There is significant difference between adding new weapon slot and adding new weapon slot while splitting parameters on existing slot and putting it into new one.
Just adding slot does not invalidate progress. Latter though is invalidating existing progress while trying to pretend is just something "new".Except it is new. If you read ANET's statements relics will have a large number of new effects never before seen. The flexibility of being able to combine old and new effects with stats that you want brings a whole new meta.
-
3
-
7
-
-
Just now, Astralporing.1957 said:
So, again, you agree. Legendary status is useless as far as protection from gear changes goes.
There were no promises implied or otherwise that legendaries made you immune from additions of other gear slots.
-
4
-
6
-
-
Just now, Sobx.1758 said:
What was not relevant to the thread was the very core of made up "reluctance to change". It's a made up hyperbole/strawman to paint the issues people raised into something they're not.
Except that wasn't my comment. That was the comment I responded to with a hypothetical. Yet again you strawman by attributing that initial comment to me and started a chain of vehement attacks. You derailed the discussion with this nonsense, and now you accuse me of being off-topic. Ironic.
-
4
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Seeing your voiding responses, it wasn't directed at anyone or in any way relatedto this thread. And that's the point 🤷♂️
My initial response was to the person talking about how people are totally reluctant to any change. My subsequent responses were to defend myself from vehement attacks because it apparently triggered some people. If my subsequent responses weren't related to the thread than the people responding to me are even less on topic.
-
2
-
4
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:
You don't have to be named in a post to reply to one. This is a public thread.
I never said people can't reply. I merely said it was fascinating to watch people response to something so vehemently to something that presumably isn't applicable or addressed to them.
-
2
-
3
-
-
45 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Okay. So, you agree. People making legendaries are in no way protected from futre gear changes and can be made to gear grind again whenever Anet will desire so.
There you go ahead translating things that were never said into headcanon.
There's no expectation of legendary equipment making you "protected" from new equipment slots in the future.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
We can now consider the Legendary Assurance (as well as a promise to never invalidate your progress) to be null and void.
It's been pointed out to you many times throughout this thread that no such "assurance" was made anywhere by ANET.
The documented promises were to not go beyond Ascended in quality, not to exceed level 80 cap, and that legendaries would have QOL to customize stat sets.
All of which remains true.
The main problem with many people is that whatever they hear they have translation software in their brain to translate into whatever they want to hear.
The gap between false expectations and reality is where resentment is born.
-
6
-
8
-
-
Just now, Sobx.1758 said:
But people here weren't "reluctant to changes", they pointed out specific pain points you avoided and then made a random strawman. When asked why was this even made up in this thread, who possibly could it be directed at, you run from addressing it by repeating "it wasn't directed at anything and anyone!", but now... it's relevant to what is being discussed?
So go argue with the person that made that post then. I merely responded to him with a hypothetical about my employees. I'm increasingly suspecting that those statements aren't as inapplicable as I thought they were considering the vehement responses.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
Just now, Drizzly.4562 said:
Yes you do. You intentionally globbed onto a misleading statement to stir kitten and further mischaracterize the arguments in the thread. No one is surprised, especially not you.
We need a yawn reaction.
Why would anything be stirred up if the hypothetical response isn't applicable or targeted at anyone? Seems like you're the one that's stirring up an argument over totally innocuous posts that weren't even addressed to you.
-
2
-
1
-
4
-
-
Just now, Sobx.1758 said:
Ah, so you just decided to start with a random offtopic irrelevant to anything in the thread, thanks for explaining.
It's generally relevant in that changes or the reluctance of changes are being discussed. I just added a tangential hypothetical. Ironically you're the one that's attempting to stir up a whole argument chain over a couple of innocuous statements.
-
3
-
1
-
4
-
-
Just now, Sobx.1758 said:
Nobody knows, not even the initial poster because it was a randomly made up misconstruction of what is being said by people in these threads that you eagerly jumped on. Glad you understand the point now. 🙋♂️
I made a hypothetical about my own employees being completely reluctant to change in response to someone else talking about some people being reluctant of change. No one was named or targeted specifically. I don't see why anyone who those statements don't apply would so vehemently and defensively respond.
-
2
-
2
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:
What's the problem? For one @Drizzly.4562 asked you (the 3 of you) to explain who exactly you're talking about and you simply avoided it again 🙃
Focus please.
I don't have telepathy I don't know who they were talking about. I merely responded with a hypothetical about my own employees being completely reluctant of having any change. It's just fascinating you're responding so vehemently to something that presumably isn't even applicable to you.
-
3
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:
And, as pointed out even on the previous page right after those posts, "not wanting any change" is not what people in these threads talk about, so it's irrelevant to anything within these threads.
All those people said was some people are "reluctant to have any change". No one was named or targeted. The fact that you so defensively and with such hostility respond to these innocuous statements shows someone is insecure about how applicable the statements are to themselves.
-
4
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:
And that post also did exactly what was mentioned in my post above and what you were apparently so surprised about in yours.
None of those posts were addressed to you or anyone else specifically. They were talking about people not wanting ANY change. If you weren't such a person then they weren't applicable to you. So what's the problem?
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Let me put it that way: if your employees are so recultant of any changes you propose, the chances are that it's not like they dislike changes in general, but rather that your changes are simply that bad.
If they were good, people would not complain.
I posed a hypothetical in response to someone else. The thing about hypotheticals is that the person posing it gets to define the parameters. You are trying to project your own parameters which I never proposed onto my hypothetical. It is straw-manning.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Well... probably similarly to how "players concerned about implementation and their already acquired gear" turned into "employees being reluctant of any changes" in your posts?
I was responding to someone else talking about people being reluctant to any changes. I didn't bring it up. You merely read into it what you wanted as usual.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Indeed. Because if you were pushing changes on a company that would kitten your employees over, they would stop working for you.
Also, notice a significant difference - Anet does not pay me to go along with their wild ideas. Especially if they try to kitten me over.
How did "reluctant of any changes" become "**** your employees over"? You did a head translate into a strawman again?
I find it very fascinating that all I said was "If I had employees so reluctant of any changes they would no longer be my employees." which doesn't name or target anyone and a bunch of people were so triggered that they responded defensively. It's almost as if they deep down know that the statement is applicable to them and they self-reported.
-
3
-
6
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Except like @Drizzly.4562 rightfully pointed out, most people aren't complaining about "change being implemented" nor did they (including me) want to somehow stop it.
DeathPanel, I know you specifically already tried doing similar thing in another thread where you constantly reverted into "nothing can possibly change because it's not a showstopper", as if people asked for huge "mechnical changes" when they didn't. Quick reminder that few minutes later you went to another thread and proposed that anet simply adds legendary relics to have an easy solution to the issue. Somehow now you're back to misrepresenting what people say about this change to paint it as if they're "reluctant of any changes"? Is this actually what you think is happening here?
I find it fascinating that you respond when you weren't even named in our posts. The gentleman dost protest too much, methinks.
-
2
-
6
-
1
-
Secrets of the Obscure or Guild Wars 3?
in Secrets of the Obscure Discussion (Archived)
Posted
Not in the way that matters.
GW2's selling point is fluid mass zerg vs zerg or massive pve world boss combat, not graphic fidelity.
GW3 would likely end up being a black desert clone at best.