Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Astralporing.1957

Members
  • Posts

    10,563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Astralporing.1957

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. ...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.
  4. 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.
  5. Seriously, you've had example of someone that did get kittened over by the last change in this very thread.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Runes were ~300-350 gold/piece before whole Relic madness started. So, people ended up overpaying 550-600 gold to save 500 gold from a price that is also extremely overinflated (and likely will drop down by several hundred gold in around half a year at most). And all that just to regain a functionality that was removed from runes before. Doesn't sound like "free" or "cheap" to me.
  12. To be precise, people expected one year mini-expansion + 3 followup patches to be an equivalent of half of a 2 year one and half of the living world season. And what Anet said did allow for that interpretation. Even if it was unlikely, many people did want to believe in Anet. You're right - they shouldn't have done so, and should have been way more sceptical of anet's optimistic announcements of how they now have more devs than before and will be able to deliver wonderful content. Still, they did believe. And no, i don't think they should be ridiculed now for being naive and actually believing Anet could deliver. The real issue from the very beginning was (and is) a downgrade of content. Most likely caused by siphoning off resources to non GW2 projects. Again, i might add.
  13. Crazy that people are still in denial about GW2 being in significantly reduced resource use mode after seeing Gyala and SotO.
  14. It's not just about number of maps. It's about other stuff in those releases as well. Like, say, the size of the story. I must say that patches managed to surprise (in a negative way) even me, and i was one of the sceptics. The people that legit expected the same overall amount of content (just cheduled differently) than in original Expac +LS release system (and there were a lot of them)? They sure didn't feel good. Sure, you can say now that they should have been expecting the worst, not the best, out of Anet's announcements, but i haven't seen you saying that then, when a ton of people were defending that new schedule and calling all sceptics to be unrealistic doomsayers.
  15. It's not about the release schedule change. As you said, it was announced, and thus had to be expected. The point is, that Anet did try to imply that it's just a reshuffling - instead of one big expansion every 2 years we 2 smaller ones (one per year), and instead of followup 6 LS chapters we'd get 2 sets of 3 followup patches. Different packaging but same content overall. And even though some more suspicious players did try to bring up that it's unlikely for Anet to make such changes for other reasons than to decrease the amount of content given, many players wanted to believe, and thus bough into that Anet narrative. Only to be met with SotO and realize that it was very far from the truth. In short, Anet did announce how the content will be packaged, and that was to be expected, but they did not mention how little of said content there will be (and of how poor quality), and that caught a lot of players by a very unpleasant surprise.
  16. Yes. They introduced those additional checks when they tightened event participation requirements for WvW. That's when the participation issues started to arise. For a while players could do with wall repair workaround, so it was less noticeable, but when that was removed the adjusted mechanic hit in force. Notice, that the assault events also have some glitches now, it's just that their additional requirements seem to be a bit easier to get with normal play. Still, the issues do happen from time to time, and it is now possible to get just a bronze participation even when being there from wall/gate destruction to lord killing and tower capping (especially if the zerg around you is big enough). So, basically, the issues happen precisely because those events have participation requirements that are not part of the scripting for any other events. Edit: and, notice, that the checks are not "constant". They happen only upon triggering somehing that might result in participation (in this case, specifically, killing an enemy player). You can go out and back without clearing participation. The enemy can go out and back without stopping being counted as an attacker. They just cannot die outside the event area. Hint nr 2: Another peculiarity is that they have to be inside the event area when they die, not you. I have obtained defence participation in defence event i wasn't participaing it by chasing someone from a camp who shortly after got killed attacking a nearby tower. I wasn't even near the defence event, but they were, an they were counted as attackers, so i suddenly qualified as defender. Yes, defence participation requirements are extremely weird stuff. And that's a problem.
  17. It being an unreliable outcome makes it highly susceptible to luck. For tens of thousands of people tat got nothing in a lottery there's always that one that wins the big prize. The issues with defence events are pretty well documented by many WvW guilds and veterans by now. I find it far more likely that you're just plain lucky, than that they all are wrong.
  18. Oh, we already know how it works, and that it is intended. We also know that it is designed badly, and works badly. And i doubt that was intended at all. I mean, imagine a different situation: a big zerg assaults a keep. A small number of players manages to hold off the assault for quite a while, even destroying some siege in the process. By doing that, they manage to keep the attackers engaged long enough that a friendly zerg arrives and kills some attackers while chasing the rest away. Even though the first group's effort was crucial in succesfully defending the keep, they get no participation, because they haven't actually managed to kill any enemy player. The second (relief) group effort didn;t count for participation either, because, even though they did manage to kill a significant number of attackers, they did it by attacking from behind, so those that died, died outside event area. Succesful defence, even heroic one might say, but noone gets anything for it, because the participation system was designed badly.
  19. Incidentally, there's been someone that did whole core map completion (including all the hearts) without killing anything at all. I think he had issues with only few hearts that had to be cheesed in more creative way. All other already included non-killing methods in their standard design. Now, story is a bit different in that regard.
  20. There's no need to upgrade. If you still have Slumbering Conflux, just go to the Grandmaster Hobbs in Lion's Arch and he will exchange it for Conflux for free. If you have Conflux however, it's already an "upgraded" version and thus there's no way to upgrade it further. Not sure what you mean about crafting "a other" though - Conflux is not unique, so the recipe should definitely work more than once.
  21. In that case allowing other players to open it would further that function even more. "i'm rich, you know" title is pretty much meaningless as a prestige if you don't flaunt it, after all.
  22. Not lean too heavily on RNGesus-based mechanics. I was never a fan of extreme drop rarity stuff for example. Yes, if you put a certain amount of effort into something, you should never get significantly less than someone else that did the same as you.
  23. Okay, fair enough. Although it's not so cheap then, because the useful insignias/inscriptions can cost a bit. At some point regearing a Chronotank after a balance patch (when they kept changing Chrono every month or so) could cost upwards of 300 gold - and the gear wasn't actually differing all that much. Do it few times in a row and suddenly legendaries start being a serious option.
×
×
  • Create New...