Jump to content
  • Sign Up

yann.1946

Members
  • Posts

    1,800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views

yann.1946's Achievements

  1. I was specifically talking about the acquisition changes to the relic, not the change to not allow soto relics. This question does not really make sense to me, doesn't it presumes that people are not disagreeing because they actually disagree, but for some other reason. Sometimes people push back because they strongly disagree, I don't think we need to look further into it perse. I don't know if you realize it, but you are asking why people would give their opinion on an forum. The answer to that question seems self-explanatory to me. Over the years, some desires for vertical progression have popped into the forums from time to time, do you think people should have given counter arguments or not? I broadly agree, sometimes people go to far. I just think the line between dismissing a person vs criticing someones position is very thin, and varies to much from person to person. So if we spend to much time trying not to dismiss people we will not have an open conversation.
  2. I was very specifically talking about the change of compensation structure. Not the change/oversight of not having soto relics. I should have probably more clear.
  3. I'll fight pretty hard on this on this. But nobody was screwed over by the change. They where better or equal of after the change then before it. Some people would have been better of if the change was communicated earlier, but nobody would be better with the pre change wording then the post change wording in relation to the acquisition.
  4. This makes no sense to me personally, should people just pretend to agree to complains when they think the thing that is complained about is a positive? Additionally, a decent amount of time people give reasons for their disagreements. But I don't think that matters that much for the people who feel alienated.
  5. Personally, I prefer the system were you have to buy the expacs to unlock the stats/relics of that expac. Specifically, so legendary gear isn't bis statwise. (A condiplayer who doesn't have hot needs to make leg gear to get access to viper for example). However, I think they should fix this oversight/ bug to make the relic more consistent with older legendaries
  6. I don't think much has changed though. It's just that the people who keep grinding stay longer between update cycles.
  7. While I understand that anet made the distinction. Relic do serve more to the actual build side. Since they are mostly about skill interactions etc. that is the reason somw people complained about the summoning type runes disappearing. Their build got taken away. Yes. Yes. But this could Al be done on one class. On the other hand skill points have to be gathered on every new class. Now the initial investment is bigger for legendary gear, but the gains are also bigger. This point doesn't really matter for the bigger case though This to me is an important point. How difficult will the relics be to get. Personally, I don't think any singular relic is difficult to get. But a broader analysis would be important. For me, the price is more important then the difficulty though. But only by a little bit. They should be just enough to make people interact with the new content. (The once associated with the exotic weapon collection are slightly to intensive in this context) While I have no problem with the principle, and even think that is better. Because ATM if you don't have a specific expac legendaries are a strict power increase and not just a qol. But this will be perceived as worse, because of the need to pay money (see the person I responded to originally for example)
  8. Don't relics fullfil a similar role? Enabling builds etc. of course in a way smaller degree. This was only through after hots hps reqs reduced substantially. And that only works if you have played the class before. If I make a new character I can use the legendary gear immediately, the same can't be said about elite specs. I would argue that the new legendary relics reqs are less restrictive then elite specs where. I understand the annoyance and fair that comes from the change. But I was mostly responding to the complained about having to buy expacs. My opinion on the relic itself is slightly more nuanced.
  9. If you think that this addresses my point in any way, there is no point continuing this conversation And did you consider elite specs a problem? Yes, me making typos is obviously the same thing as completely misusing a word. I'm not responding any more after this, it has become abundantly clear you're not actually interested in having a conversation. Edit: and you are correct I should have used there and their appropriately
  10. You do realize this was the case for all previous expacs and how elite specs worked. You mean in the same way that elite specs work? Your argument amount to complaining that expacs are pay 2 win. You're free to use the word transparently wrong if you want to. But please realize you are using the word wrong here. Just use deceptive or dishonest. That fits your opinion better. Edit: the reason I'm focusing on the word is because anet HAS been extremely transparent throughout this expac. We know there strategy, what we will get and roughly when we will get it.
  11. In the post about legendary relics they said the following: "However, from a rewards, economy, and experience-design standpoint, we think it makes sense to ask players to actually engage with new content in order to make use of its new combat offerings." Now, you might think they are dishonest, but you can't really say they are not transparent.
  12. I mean, the changes are transparent.whether they are honest, I can't judge yet.
  13. This absolutely should never happen. It would destroy what makes gw2 so good.
  14. The terminology is important though in this case. If it's a server problem only anet can fix it. If it's not a server problem it might be impossible for anet to fix.
×
×
  • Create New...