Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Astralporing.1957

Members
  • Posts

    10,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

4,835 profile views

Astralporing.1957's Achievements

  1. You are comparing number of copies sold (the number we use as a mark of popularity of single player games) to number of players. GW2 is nearing 20 million copies sold (last number i heard was 17 million, but that was before EoD). That does not mean it has (or ever had) 17 million players - the peak number was around 4 million, and it was at launch. Meanwhile WoW at its peak had 12 million players - and was then a giant no new MMORPG game will ever equal (because nowadays the market is so very different than then). Expecting any (even the best made) new MMORPG to get 20+ million players at start (or even half that number) is a pure fiction, and only shows complete lack of understanding of that market. And as for the latter part of your post, it's clear you are trying to project towards some goal. I'm still not sure what that goal is, because what you actually say doesn't really convey any special meaning. It's just a set of statements without any mention about how you think they would be relevant to the discussed thread. (although i am starting to think more and more that this is just another "GW3 now" thread in disguise)
  2. Again, it's the other way around. People debate on exact wording of Anet's statements and try to hold them up to those exactly because of their minimalistic approach to information, and their tendency to do significant direction changes based on technicalities of those wordings. All the while pretending as if nothing (important) had happened. Basically, whenever Anet uses an ambigious wording that can be interpreted in a certain way, and then refuses to clarify that issue, it usually means they at least consider such an interpretation a possibility. And that likely the interpretation they will use will not be the one players would like the most. It has always been that way, from the very beginning. It's not something that happened as a reaction to community responses, but something that generated this kind of community approach in the first place.
  3. Fair enough. I was certain you were talking about the latter, not the former.
  4. The best hooks the could always use is good content. Problem is, that requires actual work (and thus resource allocations). The gear based progression systems they start turning towards now are much cheaper to use. Of course, "cheaper" also means being a much poorer quality offering for players. It's the other way around. The go for those methods because they have already reduced game development and support and try to make do with cheaper (but also more crude) methods. It's not either/or, it's having both. When we agree with them using those mehods, we basically allow them to siphon off resources from GW2 towards other projects and get a reduced quality content. Because beyond those hooks there's barely anything else left. I also do want GW2 to be developed as much as possible - and that's exactly why i am against all this. Because it leads to reduced development and game turning mostly into hamster wheel generator, where we're supposed to continuously prepare to have fun, but without ever getting to actual fun part.
  5. No, i am unhappy any kind of miscommunication happen. And no, i do not consider lately announced changes to be "correct" ones. Since both announcement turned out to not match reality, i'd say both were incorrect, albeit for different reasons. Reverted to which point? I'd say that the version announced just before the implementation is beneficial to more players than the current one (since i don't think there's a single player that benefitted from that last unannounced change, but there were definitely those that did lose due to it). Notice, that i do not like the final version. I'd prefer the 7runes into relic one, if that also meant not changing status quo on legendary functionality. (notice: i am talking about having to actively unlock stats, not about needing an expansion to access them - that last change i feel is justified, i just heavily dislike the way it got pushed through). Original cost of runes (pre initial announcement) was around 300-350 gold per piece. It rose up as high as 900 only due to the "compensation" rush. I doubt it will ever go back to this value, but the current prices are still way up, and will go down. Same with relic, it's way, way overpriced now, in half a year or so it will likely lose half of its cost at least. Which they did not do. They kept dancing around the issue and trying to avoid telling us too much too early. And the current situation is the result. That's probably what they should have done, and much earlier. Personally, i'd not be up in arms if they announced that legendary gear giving access to new stats was a mistake, and one they intend to rectify starting with SotO. ...as long as they would have made that announcement before SotO. Adding that requirement to the Relic without announcing it beforehand was bad. Trying to do it quietly, without making an announcement at all was even worse. If they do not feel confident enough to straight out announce decisions like that when they are made, then they should not be doing them at all. Bad PR from doing thing sthis way is just not worth it, nor is willingly sacrificing trust some players still have left in them.
  6. Agreed, there's no reverting that one at this point. Although i am not sure if going by original info would have made 6 rune owners all that much happier - anyone that crafted 6-7 runes after the initial announcement overpaid much more than the relic is worth. I mean, it was pretty clear to me from the beginning that it would have been the case, but i kind of remember that a lot of people didn't seem to understand that then. And as for right advocates, it's quite normal to be more active when the situation seems to be detrimental, instead of beneficial to you. That's exactly what i do not notice. I don't see how saying "oops, right, our mistake" and allowing SotO relic choice even without SotO bought (and going with their original, announced idea of having to unlock relics only from the next expansion upward) would have been detrimental to any player. While the outrage for going back to their first announcement would have been big, i don't see how keeping to the second would have resulted in any. That's because the whole outcry happened earlier, when the initial announcement was released. I for one was clearly saying from the very beginning how i think the whole compensation, if it will be an one-time matter (instead of, say, being a permanent achievement where you get a relic for collecting 6 runes) is inevitably going to get some people kittened over, and unsatisfied. Btw, when counting how much someone has overpaid, count those that did all 7 runes as well. That's not "just" 400 gold loss, that's over 2k. Sure, i am making assumptions. Seeing as their first response to us asking "what about legendary rune owners" was "oops, we''ll get back to you later" however, i am quite sure those assumptions are pretty much spot-on. They've just forgotten about legendary runes. And it's extremely clear they initially had no plan about legendary relic either. Notice, btw, how they avoided answering key questions (like about whether the legendary relic will cover SotO runes for non-soto owners) even at the time when it's clear they already knew the answers to it. I see a far different meaning in that last implementation than you do. Sure, it was a crisis management, but not about the past issues, but the future one. Basically, they let people obtain relic easier, with only one rune, because they intended to nerf what legendary meant from that point on. If they kept to original intention (7 runes being only partial compensation, not even a full one) and then required further unlocks on that legendary relic in the future, you can bet the forums would have exploded far, far worse than they did now. Again, all that could have been avoided had Anet: 1. planned the legendary issue from the beginning, or 2. barring this had been honest about having to think first about how they will address it, and only then announcing that plan and following up on it, and, first and foremost 3. not tried to get too greedy by seeing it as an occasion to shift the status quo on legendary gear (for the detriment of legendary owners). It's not just about "short term crisis management" not lining up with implementation. It's about Anet messing up pretty much on all points related to the whole relic release.
  7. ...sigh So, basically, after all of the above, you do agree that saying that "nobody was screwed over by the change" is untrue. Thank you, that's all i wanted to say. I don't get why you kept countering me even though you did agree on that key part. The whole misinformation tango, coupled with intentional (because at this point there's nothing that might persuade me they just didn't notice the relevant questions - they did, they just decided not to anwer) withholding of clarifications was really bad. And all that happened just because they could not admit they truly have forgotten about legendary runes when introducing the relics, and so, when making first posts about legendary relic they still had no idea how to implement it.
  8. Is ~900 gold a "minimal gold investment" now? Not to mention that anyone that waits for 2-3 months is likely to be able to craft the relic directly at a lower cost than that? No, it shows that the situation wasn't clearcut of only gain no loses - some benefitted, but some did lose. It may look useless to someone that already has all the core relics they need (due to the 3 chests per character they obtained). Like the person we're talking about, that did mention he crafted the rune (to obtain the relic) for one specific purpose, and one purpose only - to gain the access to SotO relic on non-SotO account. Honestly, it's clear that from announcements they could have expected to get what they wanted, and yet they got kittened over due to Anet refusing to clarify that one issue even though many people did ask (and no, please, do not tell me they did not notice the questions, we both know it's not true). As such, a statement that, i quote " But nobody was screwed over by the change." is clearly untrue. Some people did get kittened over. We may argue about how many, or how badly, but we can't argue about the fact that people like that do exist. Unless we argue in bad faith, that is.
  9. Seriously, you've had example of someone that did get kittened over by the last change in this very thread.
  10. Not "just because". It depends on how popular it still remains. Some games end up dead in the water even before they released, while others can last for years and years. There's no clear, hard limit that can say when the lifespan expires, it's just something that happens naturally. ...thats's rare, even for mass market cellphone games. If that's your standarts, then they're way too high. And it would mean no new MMORPG would ever get made (because no new MMORPG will ever get 20+ million players on release). Seriously, it seems like you already know what answer you want to hear, and keep pushing it because other posters do not seem to supply it. If so, speak clearly, and we will tell you why we disagree. And if you don't have an answer on your own, just understand that it's because there's no such clear defined answer at all - every case is pretty much unique and not something that can be guided by some clear generic rules.
  11. There's 14 conditions total in game, but on 5 of them deal actual damage. You need to learn to recognize those, and learn when they actually start getting really dangerous (because if they are only at 1-2 stacks, for example, it's not a threshold at which you need to use cleanse yet). What most likely happened is someone pushed low stacks of different conditions on you to force a panic cleanse, and then used actual damage burst. Had you outlasted that wave, they'd likely need to wait a while before being able to do it again, which would have given you a chance at countering. Notice, that if they were getting similar levels of damage from you in the same time, they'd have to stop and deal with it as well, which would have cut down at their ability to attack you freely. And yes, condition thieves can be a pain, but that's not really due to conditions itself. It's the thief's ability to disengage and reset fight that makes them annoying. And lets them get away with running builds that would have been far more risky on other classes.
  12. They won't. If they can justify pulling out resources from GW2 now, when it is their only source of income, they will be able to justify it even more when they won't be so dependent on it anymore. And if their other project capsizes, as it happened when they tried it before, we'll go back to old post-IBS situation, but starting at an even weaker base than then. If GW2 players will allow devs to get away with such behaviour now, there won't be any winning scenario for this game anymore.
  13. What price? Without expansion to carry it, they are not worth much, i am afraid. And that's exactly what SotO is to me. A poor quality LS that might have been somewhat fine (even if somewhat meh, and in lower ranges of LS quality we've got so far) if it was part of normal cycle release, but is not okay as a replacement for that cycle.
  14. Bad movie won't become any more worth viewing just because tickets were cheap. All it means is that you lost less by going to the theater.
×
×
  • Create New...