Anet Devs: Don't listen to the Naysayers - Revisiting old content or broken & abandoned systems is a good thing.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Getting weapons functional, and opening up those options is a good thing.

It's the same story with the runes. It's a healthy change for the game.

Take those philosophies a step further in the next expansions, by revisiting old and abandoned systems...old and abandoned weapons, skills and traits...making them functional...improving them...

Specifically about Weapons : There needs to be an improvement in the way weapon design, and mechanics design in general is handled. Many weapons, do the same things (they can all be boiled down to straight damage) in the attempt to try to balance them...get rid of that philosophy and mindset it doesn't work. The focus should be on trying to extract interesting behavior from builds and how players play the game, through the design of it's skills. Give weapons interesting mechanics that allow builds to flourish not flounder. Traits suffer from this issue as well...too many traits that don't interact with the games skills in a way that leads to interesting behavior. For example: "+10% damage" is not a well designed trait...it doesn't do anything to alter the behavior of players and how one creates, or plays builds. Creativity is at the center of game design...so stop listening to the balance half-wits that want to suck the life out of the game by boiling it down into number soup.

Focus on making the mechanics of skills (weapons and traits) interesting and meaningful in prep for this expansion...let things interact with the other elements in the game, in those interesting ways.

Ultimately this ties back into everything else...old content & abandoned systems...there is a wealth of possibilities buried there and the same principles apply : revisiting old or abandoned design  in the game so that they lead to interesting behaviors. Don't funnel players into the Roller Coaster model...doing lots of work for little return for cheap one-off thrills, like Cyberpunk 2077 at launch is not a good idea. Be the guys that design a game that has everlasting and persistent novelty, through simple but deep rules and interaction that the environment calls out for. Let those interactions be driven by players... where all you do is provide the elements or atoms with which to establish those behaviors. Don't dictate the but cultivate the environment where that can happen. 

These are very general, esoteric and vague ways to describe what kind of philosophy to have into the future under this trajectory change with the expansion...but that doesn't mean these concepts don't have operational definitions and ways to execute them in a consistent manner. Lots of things have been learned and understood in the past 15 years.

Anyway, that's what i have to say for now. Good Luck A-net, thanks for making a return back to the essence of what Guild Wars 1 was originally about...build freedom, customization and novel gameplay. But please for everyone's sake, drop the quickness/alacrity economy philosophy, drop the nerf into uselessness strata and drop Purity of Purpose. Those things don't work, they didn't work in the past, and they never will in the future.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[WeightTrainer.3219]

23 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Getting weapons functional, and opening up those options is a good thing.

It's the same story with the runes. It's a healthy change for the game.

Take those philosophies a step further in the next expansions, by revisiting old and abandoned systems...old and abandoned weapons, skills and traits...making them functional...improving them...

Specifically about Weapons : There needs to be an improvement in the way weapon design, and mechanics design in general is handled. Many weapons, do the same things (they can all be boiled down to straight damage) in the attempt to try to balance them...get rid of that philosophy and mindset it doesn't work. The focus should be on trying to extract interesting behavior from builds and how players play the game, through the design of it's skills. Give weapons interesting mechanics that allow builds to flourish not flounder. Traits suffer from this issue as well...too many traits that don't interact with the games skills in a way that leads to interesting behavior. For example: "+10% damage" is not a well designed trait...it doesn't do anything to alter the behavior of players and how one creates, or plays builds. Creativity is at the center of game design...so stop listening to the balance half-wits that want to suck the life out of the game by boiling it down into number soup.

Focus on making the mechanics of skills (weapons and traits) interesting and meaningful in prep for this expansion...let things interact with the other elements in the game, in those interesting ways.

Ultimately this ties back into everything else...old content & abandoned systems...there is a wealth of possibilities buried there and the same principles apply : revisiting old or abandoned design  in the game so that they lead to interesting behaviors. Don't funnel players into the Roller Coaster model...doing lots of work for little return for cheap one-off thrills, like Cyberpunk 2077 at launch is not a good idea. Be the guys that design a game that has everlasting and persistent novelty, through simple but deep rules and interaction that the environment calls out for. Let those interactions be driven by players... where all you do is provide the elements or atoms with which to establish those behaviors. Don't dictate the but cultivate the environment where that can happen. 

These are very general, esoteric and vague ways to describe what kind of philosophy to have into the future under this trajectory change with the expansion...but that doesn't mean these concepts don't have operational definitions and ways to execute them in a consistent manner. Lots of things have been learned and understood in the past 15 years.

Anyway, that's what i have to say for now. Good Luck A-net, thanks for making a return back to the essence of what Guild Wars 1 was originally about...build freedom, customization and novel gameplay. But please for everyone's sake, drop the quickness/alacrity economy philosophy, drop the nerf into uselessness strata and drop Purity of Purpose. Those things don't work, they didn't work in the past, and they never will in the future.

Yes, revisit WvW. It is old, abandoned and broken. Thank you.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 minutes ago, WeightTrainer.3219 said:

Yes, revisit WvW. It is old, abandoned and broken. Thank you.

Ain’t that the truth! Lol

[Linken.6345]

Your thread title is correct OP, sad to say nothing they revisited in the expansion is broken or abandoned tho.

[Batalix.2873]

I agree with this. The HoT/PoF especs largely worked and were fun because the devs put in the effort to create unique and meaningful tradeoffs, fun conceits, gameplay loops, limitations, etc. They, fancy that, *designed* them.

This whole new approach is (a) tacitly admitting the EoD specs were hardly up to the same design standards and need to be pieces out or supplemented to feel good and (b) effectively giving up on dev-side job fantasy design altogether and hoping the players will latch onto a Mario Maker style of buildcraft the game hasn't had or been balanced around since HoT.

[Ashen.2907]

Very few of the complaints (only one that I have seen) are in opposition to revisiting old systems, etc. They are unhappy with the form the revisits seem to be taking. I am positive that the OP would be unhappy with system revisions as well if they made the game less appealing to him. Lets create an example:

Would the OP be happy if ANet revisited the monetization system and added a $15 sub fee, doubled the price of all gemstore items and the expansion?

Would the OP be happy if all of the existing classes were deleted and WoW classes were added in their place (of course requiring that all existing characters be deleted)

How about removing dodging and a self heal on every character.

Ooh, I am sure the OP would support removing all cosmetics from all characters and requiring players to re-unlock them on a per character basis....and why nof do the same for all masteries, mounts, etc...?

Again, the naysayers have issues with what or how things are being done. Not with the fact that things are being done.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

15 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I am positive that the OP would be unhappy with system revisions as well if they made the game less appealing to him.

Again, the naysayers have issues with what or how things are being done. Not with the fact that things are being done.

Well of course. That’s kind of my point in that, central to what makes a good game is it’s design. There is such a thing as good design and bad design. That’s not exclusive to Anet either, but to design principles in general…whether you’re an architect, a website designer, a developer…
 

You’re not designing for the sake of designing…

But the point is that, it is the most important thing; getting good design out of the system you’re trying to make. Imagine using a program that has so many half baked, poorly designed systems and ones solution is to add more half baked poorly designed systems. It makes no sense.
 

If you have some system you made, you either work through how to make it better or replace it with something that is better designed. That’s just a very obvious thing people do, should do. Whether that design is actually better is a creative pursuit…it takes knowledge, experience and finesse to get gud at designing stuff. And ultimately that is the most important feature of the game… is how it’s end users behave and whether that behavior creates and does beautiful things.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ashen.2907]

6 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Well of course. That’s kind of my point in that, central to what makes a good game is it’s design. There is such a thing as good design and bad design. That’s not exclusive to Anet either, but to design principles in general…whether you’re an architect a website designer,  a developer…
 

Your not designing for the sake of designing…but the point is that it is the most important thing; getting good design out of the thing your trying to make. Imagine using a program that has so many half baked, poorly designed systems and their solution is to add more half baked poorly designed systems. It makes no sense.
 

If you have some system you made and you work through either how to make it better or replace it with something that is better designed. That’s just a very obvious thing people do. Whether that design is actually better is a creative pursuit…it takes knowledge, experience and finesse to get gud at designing stuff. And ultimately that is the most important feature of the game is how it’s end users behave and whether that behavior creates beautiful things.

And, again, what people (for most part) are protesting, contrary to your title statement, is not that ANet is working on old, abandoned, broken systems/content but rather that the direction this work is taking seems harmful or otherwise detracts from the game in how it is being implemented.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Ashen.2907

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

8 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

And, again, what people (for most part) are protesting, contrary to your title statement, is not that ANet is working on old, abandoned, broken systems/content but rather that the direction this work is taking seems harmful.

That’s contradictory because the direction Anet taking is exactly working on old, abandoned or broken systems/content…so saying the direction is harmful also implies that working on old abandoned and broken systems/content is by proxy harmful.

so be clear, what about this direction specifically seems harmful.

btw, Please don’t impose on my position the belief that I take everything they are doing as not being harmful. I quoted in the OP, stuff that they should drop and stuff they should focus and hone in on.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Linken.6345]

Yes but instead of making a new path to skyscale the could bake in pof with sod.

Then made a second return to each week of season 4 to get people to earn their skyscales, up to the  release of sod.

1 less to develop 2 get people to play older content and 3 could have put something better into the expansion.

The weapons will be a balancing nightmare they can hardly balance the weapons we got at the moment when 3 of them are locked to 1 espec each.

There was a reason they went away from gw1 the skill bloat there and here it will be weapon bloat.

Make the game hard to balance.

There was no reason to touch runes want to give another stat stick then add relics add the 6th rune bonus there instead.

But no someone wanted to compicate the system and screw people over in the process.

It might turn out better in the end but it the negative feelings worth it?

Remember when they made it so you had to earn to be able to use major traits? (only for new players old player retained their ablity)

That lasted alittle over a year ( april 2014-june-2015) since it was a 1 and done system tied to events people did not want to do again after they unlocked their trait.

This could easily be the same if some relic bonuses that is great for people is to hard to unlock the screaming on the forum unbeliveable.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Linken.6345

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Yes but instead of making a new path to skyscale the could bake in pof with sod.

Then made a second return to each week of season 4 to get people to earn their skyscales, up to the  release of sod.

1 less to develop 2 get people to play older content and 3 could have put something better into the expansion.

The weapons will be a balancing nightmare they can hardly balance the weapons we got at the moment when 3 of them are locked to 1 espec each.

There was a reason they went away from gw1 the skill bloat there and here it will be weapon bloat.

Make the game hard to balance.

There was no reason to touch runes want to give another stat stick then add relics add the 6th rune bonus there instead.

But no someone wanted to compicate the system and screw people over in the process.

It might turn out better in the end but it the negative feelings worth it?

Remember when they made it so you had to earn to be able to use traits?

This could easily be the same if some relic bonuses that is great for people is to hard to unlock the screaming on the forum unbeliveable.

As a 18 year veteran of the franchise, Guild Wars 1 was never really approached from balancing like in Guild Wars 2. You have to remember that back then there was no forums or direct communication with Anet to even discuss balance issues.

Guild Wars 1 also never really suffered from balance issues at all other than say Melle-Hate and Monk supremacy. Balance updates back then, we’re almost exclusively skill changes for the sake of changes and never any real attempt to balance anything. People were actually excited to see balance changes from that game because it meant new options and combinations to explore.

there also was no real “meta” in gw1…it was just tons and tons of group compositions that all had weird and wacky ways of behaving and in fact that’s what was so beautiful about the game was that that was a thing. 

[Ashen.2907]

Just now, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

hat’s contradictory because the direction Anet taking is exactly working on old, abandoned or broken systems…so saying the direction is harmful also implies that working on old abandoned and broken systems is by proxy harmful.

No.

But it can be. I am not saying, or implying, that working on old systems IS inherently harmful, but rather that the specifics of this particular approach to working on those systems can be.

For example, some attempts to restore old faded artwork resulted in ruining said pieces of art.

The only way we could possibly make the argument that working on old, whatever it is, cannot be harmful would be to argue that those doing the work are infallible. Perfect. Incapable of making mistakes....that they are some form of omniscient beings.

The clear counterpoint to this is the fact that ANet has specifically stated that they make mistakes and that some of their decisions are wrong.

If ANet is not capable of making bad decisions, producing imperfect work.....how are there broken systems to be worked on? So, if we acknowledge that ANet's work can be flawed and broken the we acknowledge that this particular work, as outlined in their announcements, can be flawed and broken. Speaking out against changes that one perceives to be flawed and broken is not speakimg against change...it is speaking against these specific changes.

[Batalix.2873]

1 hour ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Very few of the complaints (only one that I have seen) are in opposition to revisiting old systems, etc. They are unhappy with the form the revisits seem to be taking. I am positive that the OP would be unhappy with system revisions as well if they made the game less appealing to him. Lets create an example:

Would the OP be happy if ANet revisited the monetization system and added a $15 sub fee, doubled the price of all gemstore items and the expansion?

Would the OP be happy if all of the existing classes were deleted and WoW classes were added in their place (of course requiring that all existing characters be deleted)

How about removing dodging and a self heal on every character.

Ooh, I am sure the OP would support removing all cosmetics from all characters and requiring players to re-unlock them on a per character basis....and why nof do the same for all masteries, mounts, etc...?

Again, the naysayers have issues with what or how things are being done. Not with the fact that things are being done.

I would agree with this, generally. For most of the SotO features I am mostly concerned with how it will impact player population of past content. If they can develop some legitimately new features to keep those parts of the game active, my concerns are largely alleviated.

It's this whole balancing patch + breaking down especs + off-brand new weapons thing that really is not the right approach. Like the EoD specs, there are kernels of ideas here, but this feels like a desperate rough draft implementation and not how they should actually be approaching the system. This is providing minimal/questionable benefits to the players, at the direct cost of the existing profession edifice, with little to no evidence of consideration or an intent to replace/preserve what is being lost.

And it is that attitude that colors my opinions about the former, all of the other things the devs are cannibalizing for the sake of SotO. I see the breaking down of the old, and it is substantial. I see the new, it is...kind of there, albeit barely. I don't see much attempts to preserve or rebuild or otherwise meaningfully replace/refine the old yet. Especially the weapons changes amount to wantonly breaking things and just hoping the spectacle is enough to sell it to players.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

25 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

No.

But it can be. I am not saying, or implying, that working on old systems IS inherently harmful, but rather that the specifics of this particular approach to working on those systems can be.

For example, some attempts to restore old faded artwork resulted in ruining said pieces of art.

The only way we could possibly make the argument that working on old, whatever it is, cannot be harmful would be to argue that those doing the work are infallible. Perfect. Incapable of making mistakes....that they are some form of omniscient beings.

The clear counterpoint to this is the fact that ANet has specifically stated that they make mistakes and that some of their decisions are wrong.

If ANet is not capable of making bad decisions, producing imperfect work.....how are there broken systems to be worked on? So, if we acknowledge that ANet's work can be flawed and broken the we acknowledge that this particular work, as outlined in their announcements, can be flawed and broken. Speaking out against changes that one perceives to be flawed and broken is not speakimg against change...it is speaking against these specific changes.

So two things:

First thing: The excuse to not fix stuff because you can't curate a perfect solution, doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to at least try. This logic is not how any designer approaches any kind of problem. Systems whatever those might be, get better through iteration, improvement and good thinking skills. So trying is not harmful even if you made mistakes along the way.

Like mentioned earlier, good design is knowledge, experience, intelligence and finesse...it takes all those things to continue to iterate and improve on something. Not trying, is the opposite of gaining knowledge experience, or intelligence... and you don't get to finesse without those three things.

Second thing is, that improvement is made through figuring what works, and what doesn't work, through learning about the fundamentals and principles behind the stuff...and through executing and seeing what happens as a result of what you did...learning from those experiences to make the next set of improvements. I mentioned in the OP, that certain things they did didn't work in the past (Purity of Purpose) and that they should drop that philosophy because it didn't work back then, so it's time they learn from that experience.

Purity of Purpose btw, is the reason we had locked weapons to elite specs to begin with, and why even when Elite Specs have access to core weapons they had almost always used just their elite spec weapon because of how their traits were designed with that purpose.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Linken.6345]

17 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So two things:

First thing: The excuse to not fix stuff because you can't curate a perfect solution, doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to at least try. This logic is not how any designer approaches any kind of problem. Systems whatever those might be, get better through iteration, improvement and good thinking skills. So trying is not harmful even if you made mistakes along the way.

Like mentioned earlier, good design is knowledge, experience, intelligence and finesse...it takes all those things to continue to iterate and improve on something. Not trying, is the opposite of gaining knowledge experience, or intelligence... and you don't get to finesse without those three things.

Second thing is, that improvement is made through figuring what works, and what doesn't work, through learning about the fundamentals and principles behind the stuff...and through executing and seeing what happens as a result of what you did...learning from those experiences to make the next set of improvements. I mentioned in the OP, that certain things they did didn't work in the past (Purity of Purpose) and that they should drop that philosophy because it didn't work back then, so it's time they learn from that experience.

Purity of Purpose btw, is the reason we had locked weapons to elite specs to begin with, and why even when Elite Specs have access to core weapons they had almost always used just their elite spec weapon because of how their traits were designed with that purpose.

Yea and when have Anet ever been good at iterating, they did 5 man dungeons, wops this is to hard to fix lets nerf it to the ground and instead do fractals.

Great for awhile until it took to many resources well why dont we do dragon response missions instead.

That did not go down well so then they stop doing 5 man content all together until quite recently when fractals made a return.

Same can be said about 10 man content too.

Only good about this expansion is that we use the z axis so all the previous maps can be reused and we dont spread people out further.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Linken.6345

[Ashen.2907]

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So two things:

First thing: The excuse to not fix stuff because you can't curate a perfect solution, doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to at least try. This logic is not how any designer approaches any kind of problem. Systems whatever those might be, get better through iteration, improvement and good thinking skills. So trying is not harmful even if you made mistakes along the way.

Like mentioned earlier, good design is knowledge, experience, intelligence and finesse...it takes all those things to continue to iterate and improve on something. Not trying, is the opposite of gaining knowledge experience, or intelligence... and you don't get to finesse without those three things.

Second thing is, that improvement is made through figuring what works, and what doesn't work, through learning about the fundamentals and principles behind the stuff...and through executing and seeing what happens as a result of what you did...learning from those experiences to make the next set of improvements. I mentioned in the OP, that certain things they did didn't work in the past (Purity of Purpose) and that they should drop that philosophy because it didn't work back then, so it's time they learn from that experience.

Purity of Purpose btw, is the reason we had locked weapons to elite specs to begin with, and why even when Elite Specs have access to core weapons they had almost always used just their elite spec weapon because of how their traits were designed with that purpose.

1) I never said that one should not try to fix things because there is no perfect solution. Nothing even remotely close. I do, however, acknowledge ANet's fallibility (as do they) and so acknowledge tha the specific things being done could be poorly chosen.

2) Trying can be harmful if what is beimg tried is harmful. Mao was trying to fix problems in the agriculture of China when he ordered all sparrows killed because they fed, sometimes, on growing produce. The absence of sparrows meant that the insects that were their primary diet ran rampant, destroyed crops on a massive scale, and millions of people starved to death....but he was trying, right?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Yea and when have Anet ever been good at iterating, they did 5 man dungeons, wops this is to hard to fix lets nerf it to the ground and instead do fractals.

Great for awhile until it took to many resources well why dont we do dragon response missions instead.

That did not go down well so then they stop doing 5 man content all together until quite recently when fractals made a return.

Same can be said about 10 man content too.

Only good about this expansion is that we use the z axis so all the previous maps can be reused and we dont spread people out further.

That's exactly the point bro...Anet hasn't been doing that (for the last 10 years), they've just been making more and more half baked, broken systems. They have been improving as they make more and more of these systems, but they should go back and improve things that they left behind half baked.

Going back and fixing unusable core weapons, is the start of this direction, to go to old systems and improve/fix them. In the same token, unlocking weapon pools is utilizing stuff that already exists in the game, and building on what already exists to further the ability to customize. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

2) Trying can be harmful if what is beimg tried is harmful. Mao was trying to fix problems in the agriculture of China when he ordered all sparrows killed because they fed, sometimes, on growing produce. The absence of sparrows meant that the insects that were their primary diet ran rampant, destroyed crops on a massive scale, and millions of people starved to death....but he was trying, right?

"Trying can be harmful" said the man full of regrets.

I know what your saying, but you're just making an argument for the sake of argument. trying is only harmful, if you have nothing upstairs. You use the knowledge of other people experiences, and how the world works, to try things, and yea, you might fail, or you might actually strike gold and win.

the bigger problem, is not actually learning from your mistakes. Purity of Purpose is literally a not learning from your mistakes moment. 

[Ashen.2907]

Just now, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

"Trying can be harmful" said the man full of regrets.

I know what your saying, but you're just making an argument for the sake of argument. trying is only harmful, if you have nothing upstairs. You use the knowledge of other people experiences, and how the world works, to try things, and yea, you might fail, or you might actually strike gold and win.

the bigger problem, is not actually learning from your mistakes. Purity of Purpose is literally a not learning from your mistakes moment. 

Mao's millions say hi. No harm there. 

Trying harmful things is harmful. Ask every addict sleeping in the gutter. The kid attemptimg to throw a molotov cocktail through a shop window in his neighborhood was, supposedly, trying to achieve some sort of justice righ up until the moment he broke it and doused himself with burning gasoline....not harmful at all.

Again it isn't that trying is harmful, but rather that trying something harmful is.

 

As to arguing for the sake of arguing...you are the one who started a topic with a strawman title.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Mao's millions say hi. No harm there. 

Trying harmful things is harmful. Ask every addict sleeping in the gutter. The kid attemptimg to throw a molotov cocktail through a shop window in his neighborhood was, supposedly, trying to achieve some sort of justice righ up until the moment he broke it and doused himself with burning gasoline....not harmful at all.

Again it isn't that trying is harmful, but rather that trying something harmful is.

 

As to arguing for the sake of arguing...you are the one who started a topic with a strawman title.

How can a title be a strawman lmao.

My post is not even written in the form of an argument. it's a thank you letter to Anet, and a recommendation about how to think about the future going forward.

You're worldview is a bit skewed man. Go out there and try stuff, don't be afraid to chase your dreams cause some dead guy screwed up once. If that bit of history is somehow relevant to you in your life, then learn from that EXP and don't make the same mistake. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ashen.2907]

7 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

How can a title be a strawman lmao.

My post is not even written in the form of an argument. it's a thank you letter to Anet, and a recommendation about how to think about the future going forward.

You're worldview is a bit skewed man. Go out there and try stuff, don't be afraid to chase your dreams cause some dead guy screwed up once. If that bit of history is somehow relevant to you in your life, then learn from that EXP and don't make the same mistake. 

I do try stuff, I just choose not to try things like dousing myself in burning gasoline. Its not my view that is skewed if youre the one arguing that killing millions of people is not harmful as long as you were trying to do good.

As to the strawman, your title references naysayers and implies that they are opposed to attempting to improve or repair existing systems. Such is not the case (with the exception of one thread where even those opposed to some of these changes actively tell the OP he is wrong). Opposing a specific change is not opposition to change itself.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Ashen.2907

[Ashen.2907]

And, by the way, I agree with much (if not all) of the content of your post. Even those aspects I disagree with (such as the dismissal of balance....I am primarily a competitive mode player of late and at least a semblance of balance means a great deal there) I understand where you are coming from. It is the shade thrown in the OP title, and subsequent argument that no manner of harm counts as harmful if you were trying to do good, that I categorically disagree with.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I do try stuff, I just choose not to try things like dousing myself in burning gasoline. Its not my view that is skewed if you're the one arguing that killing millions of people is not harmful as long as you were trying to do good.

I think you're only having that argument with yourself, not me.

Quote

As to the strawman, your title references naysayers and implies that they are opposed to attempting to improve or repair existing systems. Such is not the case (with the exception of one thread where even those opposed to some of these changes actively tell the OP he is wrong). Opposing a specific change is not opposition to change itself.

You're mistake right now, is that you're looking way to deep into this title which is not formed as an argument to begin with. The dash that separates the title into two segments, is a separation of thoughts, and doesn't make explicit who naysayers are or if they say anything in particular, other than that they are nay-saying, that A-net has them, and shouldn't listen to what they have to say. 

What you are doing is assuming the nature of a "naysayer" speaking for it and deriving conclusions about it as if what is said after the dash, was not a dash but a quotation...something that you could "direct" or post a strawman claim too. But that's the issue when it comes to you claiming a strawman here : It requires someone to pose an argument in the first place, and the title is not an argument or a quotation, nor is it formatted like one.

Notice how I make no mention of naysayers in this actual OP of the thread either. Again attacking something that was never there to begin with even if this was an argument you could attack in the first place. 

Anyway man, this to me is just dragging on now. I don't even think these arguments have any substance to them because they aren't really referring to anything uhh...of substance I guess. I'm not gonna sit here, and try to change your worldview about whether people should try things or not, I don't really care much about who naysayers are or what they are really even saying in a specific sense. I never even made a statement that people were opposed to change in the first place, and it really has nothing to do with this OP to begin with, or any other thread for that matter. 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Peter.3901]

Nice, so lets revisit raids since they are the true broken abandoned system, or even PVP that don't get a new map or rework for ages, instead of just cathering the lazy mass.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Peter.3901

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

13 minutes ago, Peter.3901 said:

Nice, so lets revisit raids since they are the true broken abandoned system, or even PVP that don't get a new map or rework for ages, instead of just cathering the lazy mass.

That's what this post is about.