DeathPanel.8362

I don't need any clarification from ANET. Things are very clear as is. ANET never promised runes will never change or that they'll never implement new gear slots which may have some rune effects shifted to them. This is just an objective fact that needs no clarification.

The main reason people get upset is due to the gap between expectations and reality. People need to have realistic expectations based on what was actually promised by ANET rather than unrealistic expectations being shaped by their own incorrect interpretations. ANET never promised that runes won't be modified. ANET never promised that they will never implement new gear slots that may have some effects of runes shifted to it. ANET did promise that legendary runes will be fully customizable at will, which REMAINS the case in the new expansion.

No one ever promised runes would stay the same forever.

Harry Potter with gun meme intensifies.

And you'll still be able to customize legendary runes at will. Why is this so difficult to understand?

An increase in flexibility naturally results in performance increases in certain builds. If things get a bit out of hand they can be toned down via tweaks to certain problematic skill damage, trait effects, etc.

And you'll still be immune to rune costs if you have legendary runes. The premise holds. Nowhere does it state you're immune to all other unspecified gear slot implementation costs just because you have legendary runes. I'm not opposed to ANET offering legendary rune owners something special to keep them happy but I'm not holding my breath either.

Adjustments can be made via balancing skills and weapon damage or trait effects if numbers get too high. The biggest improvement is the quality of life offered by relics by making builds far more flexible.

Legendaries are just a form of Quality of Life. What has happened is that they nerfed the quality of life for legendary runes but improved the quality of life overall for all players by untying the effect from rune sets allowing for greater build flexibility for everyone.

It's not combating power creep. It's itself power creep since giving more flexibility by untying effects from runes will allow for potentially stronger builds. My fundamental point still stands though. In MMOs changes often cause players to need to spend currency or time to adjust. I cited ascended gear implementation as an example. Obviously, people aren't happy about it but a game can't stay in stasis forever.

And those expectations still hold because they won't spend any additional money on having to buy runes. There was never a promise that they wouldn't spend any currency on any unspecified future gear slot implementation which may have some effects that previously were on runes.

Nowhere in the legendary implementation did ANET promise that runes will never be changed. You'll still be able to customize the stats of legendary runes for free.

You keep framing your argument around legendary owners when I've already pointed out that balance decisions that affect everyone shouldn't be made focused on exceptional cases. The additional costs in Relics are applied to everyone, not just legendary owners. Everyone has to get these new relics. The only difference is you have the false expectation that legendary rune owners shouldn't incur this new cost.

Doesn't change the fundamental point I was making. Having to make changes due to changes isn't something unheard of. Back when the ascended gear was implemented people had to literally pay for or regrind every single equipment slot.

Unless a legendary relic is provided this new expansion will require owners of legendary runes to pay some currency. Jade bots also required owners of legendaries to pay for currency because there's no legendary jade bot. My point stands.

That's out of the people that bothered to create an account on GW2 efficiency or even knew what it was. That in itself is a very tiny portion of the entire player base. The total player base of GW2 is 18,369,523 according to mmo-population. Edit: In addition, people who are serious enough about playing a game that they'd sign up for GW2Efficiency and link up their GW2 accounts through API calls are typically amongst the most legendary holders, so statistics in GW2Efficiency isn't at all representative of the entire overall player base.

The difference is in degrees, not the fundamentals. Time and currency are still needed in both situations. You also can't know that this new item slot will take more currency than respeccing a character or 2's gear since that could run up to 100+ gold easily if you are replacing ascended armor pieces. That will only be known once they provide this info or after release.

Nothing said here refutes what I've said. The bottom line is Nerf patches result in time or currency needed to offset. I wasn't complaining about it. I was just pointing out the facts of the situation to point out that this relic change is not any different fundamentally.

Since you mentioned POE you realize POE has been replacing systems that work many times with other ones right? Forsaken masters were replaced. Atlas zone passives were implemented and replaced by Atlas passives. Some effects were shifted into Specializations, masteries, and clustered jewels. Runes aren't getting replaced. They're getting supplemented by Relics. In the same way, the passive tree in POE was supplemented by the addition of Masteries and Clustered Jewels which they shifted existing effects into.

You haven't answered the question. Is 2.5% exceptional or normal?

So you're still in full exotic berserk gear? Fractals must be difficult.

Could be a list of masteries or collections that you need to complete.

That was his response to my post in which I said nerf patch. Read further upstream and you'll see the context of the actual discussion.

Pointing out that Nerf patches result in players having to pay currency or grind to change their builds to offset them is somehow "protective" of ANET? Pointing out that just because the fringe cases of those that have legendaries don't have to pay currency doesn't mean it disproves the generality that most people have to is "protective" of ANET?

Would you say 2.5% represents the norm or the exception?