Legendary Relics are Coming Soon

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

23 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

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.

 

You call that transparent; I would say that what they AREN'T saying is more important. Because in order to "engage" with the new content in their new model, you have to purchase it. Which as I said earlier, gives them a strong incentive to up the "power" of what they're locking behind that paywall.

I'm calling it now, that the next expansion will have numerous "must have" relics that you'll only get access to by buying the new expansion. Whereas when they were part of the 6 piece rune bonus, you wouldn't have needed to.

So I'm standing by my comment about a lack of transparency, at least as far as intent is concerned.

[Geralt.7519]

On 2/15/2024 at 4:53 PM, Cyninja.2954 said:

Are you an active player? Are you generating revenue? Would you be the target customer the studio should develop for today purely based on your spending? Answer those questions honestly, then ask yourself if your approch makes sense from a business perspective.

Not the one you're asking but I'm a veteran and I used to be fairly active, both in playing the game and spending money on it (I reached a point in life in which my time has become much more valuable than my money).

This change in direction has put me so off that I've become inactive, believing I'm not their target player anymore (I'm still here watching, hope is always the last to die they say).

Only Anet knows how many people like me there are (probably), in the best case we're a tiny minority and the changes they're making could be healthy for the game.

If people like me are not so few, putting off many veterans is usually not a good idea, I've seen a couple of games already doing that and it didn't end well unfortunately.

 

[yann.1946]

38 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

You call that transparent; I would say that what they AREN'T saying is more important. Because in order to "engage" with the new content in their new model, you have to purchase it. Which as I said earlier, gives them a strong incentive to up the "power" of what they're locking behind that paywall.

You do realize this was the case for all previous expacs and how elite specs worked. 

38 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

I'm calling it now, that the next expansion will have numerous "must have" relics that you'll only get access to by buying the new expansion. Whereas when they were part of the 6 piece rune bonus, you wouldn't have needed to.

You mean in the same way that elite specs work?  

Your argument amount to complaining that expacs are pay 2 win. 

38 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

So I'm standing by my comment about a lack of transparency, at least as far as intent is concerned.

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.

Edited February 21 by yann.1946

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

2 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

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.

Sigh. Walk me through where elite specs were tied into legendaries. I'll wait.

So yes, they've ALREADY proven that they are happy to push player power behind a paywall. So that makes it even less of a leap to say that they're planning to extend and expand that notion, to make it that much harder for anyone to keep up without buying their new "expansion". And if SOTO is any indication about the quality of actual content in those "expansions", using other tools to get people to buy them is going to be their only option.

And if you're going to accuse other people of using the wrong word, feel free to check the different meanings of "there" and "their".

[Manasa Devi.7958]

I think it's simply that they've already designed the same way of obtaining new relics for the next expansion as they are for the current one, and they don't want to invalidate this future content with regard to rewards. I'm not worried about existing legendaries. Paying for new options is no biggie for me either. As long as I keep playing this game, I'll buy new expansions anyway. There will never be a time where I'll still play and not buy an expansion. If they ever release something I don't want, I'll stop playing altogether. I pretty much always  take breaks a few months before expansions anyway. The difference without a new expansion will be that I won't come back to the game again. I'm probably not the target costumer, I never spend money on the game other than expansions, and after the disappointing extras for deluxe editions I haven't shelled out for more than just the basics.

Edited February 21 by Manasa Devi.7958

[Ashen.2907]

25 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

they're planning to extend and expand that notion,

I dont think they are expanding the power locked behind a paywall notion. I think that they are replacing what form that power takes. By stopping development of elite specs (either temporarily or permanently) ANet is left looking for a different way to offer increased power tied to expacs. I think that it is very possible, perhaps even likely, that expac only relics will serve that purpose. Not so much an expansion as a replacement.

Edited February 21 by Ashen.2907

[Astralporing.1957]

38 minutes ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

I think it's simply that they've already designed the same way of obtaining new relics for the next expansion as they are for the current one, and they don't want to invalidate this future content with regard to rewards.

If they expect the future content to be so unrewarding and uninteresting that unlocking relics would be a major drive to play it, that is not a good message at all.

38 minutes ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

I'm not worried about existing legendaries.

I wasn't worried about legendary runes before. And then they announced relics. This time i am afraid they will use this very same approach and apply it to other stuff as well.

38 minutes ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

Paying for new options is no biggie for me either. As long as I keep playing this game, I'll buy new expansions anyway. There will never be a time where I'll still play and not buy an expansion. If they ever release something I don't want, I'll stop playing altogether. I pretty much always  take breaks a few months before expansions anyway.

Same for me either. If i stop buying new expansions, it will be because i stopped playing, which would likely mean i'd already not be caring about that stuff anyway. What is an issue for me is that they apparently think so badly about their content they feel the need to introduce a gear grind as a drive to make people want to play it more. And this, as i have already mentioned, is not a good message. Because it means they fully expect to not be able to keep me engaged in game with other stuff the way they managed to do so far. And if they think that, i definitely should not hold much hopes for the future.

[yann.1946]

4 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

Sigh. Walk me through where elite specs were tied into legendaries. I'll wait.

If you think that this addresses my point in any way, there is no point continuing this conversation 

4 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

So yes, they've ALREADY proven that they are happy to push player power behind a paywall. So that makes it even less of a leap to say that they're planning to extend and expand that notion, to make it that much harder for anyone to keep up without buying their new "expansion". And if SOTO is any indication about the quality of actual content in those "expansions", using other tools to get people to buy them is going to be their only option.

And did you consider elite specs a problem?

4 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

And if you're going to accuse other people of using the wrong word, feel free to check the different meanings of "there" and "their".

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 

Edited February 21 by yann.1946

[Cyninja.2954]

8 hours ago, Geralt.7519 said:

Only Anet knows how many people like me there are (probably), in the best case we're a tiny minority and the changes they're making could be healthy for the game.

Which is exactly what the revenue reports have and will tell.

The past model didn't work. That's the only fact we can base any speculation on. How much one wants to attribute this to different factors (monetization, disorganization, constant reshuffling of content deliver, free living world content, not enough focus on competative modes, not enough "grind", etc.) can be subjective, but the fact all of it combined was leading the game to its grave was not.

Now that is not to say everything which has, was or is changed has to be accepted. It does tell us that certain elements of the past are not sustainable though, most notably the montization.

8 hours ago, Geralt.7519 said:

If people like me are not so few, putting off many veterans is usually not a good idea, I've seen a couple of games already doing that and it didn't end well unfortunately.

True, but the opposite is true for other games. Let's also not forget the games which did not adapt and eventually disappeared because of that.

It's easy to focus on the negatives, especially when those are paired with change.

It's more difficult to look at both sides, and maybe also attribute certain elements to not game related issues, for example game fatigue.

For veterans it goes even beyond that, because as more and more elements fall away (having every character, having legendaries, mastering types of content, etc.) one might lose interest in the game. Attributing this to "oh the game has changed, that's why" is usually most players first assumption.

Edited February 21 by Cyninja.2954

[EdwinLi.1284]

only benefit I see for Legendary Relics is that we will save a lot of inventory space since each Relic takes up a single slot if a player focus more on one character as a Main character for most of their content experience. 

I think we will need some kind of Relic storage section later down the line if players are trying to manage relic use between multiple characters since as more Relics are added, the demand for more space to store them will increase. 

Edited February 21 by EdwinLi.1284

[Mistwraithe.3106]

16 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

"I can't argue against the points made, so I'll insult the people making those arguments and flounce out".

I said what ANET are doing. I speculated the reasons behind those changes. If you have a better reason for WHY they are making these changes, I'll be happy to hear it. We all want the game to do well, and personally I've sunk plenty of money into it over the years. I don't have an issue with ANET seeking ways to solidify the revenue streams that this game generates. I just want them to do it in a transparent and honest way.

What they appear to be doing with legendary changes isn't either of those things.

 

I did argue against the points made. I also said that I could see many of the points raised were reasonable from their viewpoint but I (and others) still disagreed with them, partly due to different viewpoints.

There is little new progress being made in this thread though. Your post is similar to many others in that essentially you are saying you want the game to do well but you don't trust Anet to make the changes they think are required for it to do well (with an added twist of saying they aren't being transparent when they've been very good about that).

There isn't really much more useful to say from that point. You (and others here) don't trust Anet to improve the game in a way that you approve of and you are speculating about the future on that basis. I don't agree but there isn't really anything I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise so I maintain there is little left to discuss in this thread.

[WRay.2391]

36 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I did argue against the points made. I also said that I could see many of the points raised were reasonable from their viewpoint but I (and others) still disagreed with them, partly due to different viewpoints.

There is little new progress being made in this thread though. Your post is similar to many others in that essentially you are saying you want the game to do well but you don't trust Anet to make the changes they think are required for it to do well (with an added twist of saying they aren't being transparent when they've been very good about that).

There isn't really much more useful to say from that point. You (and others here) don't trust Anet to improve the game in a way that you approve of and you are speculating about the future on that basis. I don't agree but there isn't really anything I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise so I maintain there is little left to discuss in this thread.

Yes, everybody had different viewpoint. This thread is about raising concerns to Anet at the first place so they will know about part of community disagreement, not to convince you personally.

Also telling they are transparent is overstatement at least. They definitely weren't transparent about legendary relics cause they didn't even thought trough legendary rune changes in the beginning and then were misleading about compensation, and finally came to some subpar legendary model raising even more questions. If they want to be transparent they need to say: we screwed up with legendary runes, legendary relic is exception, future legendaries will never follow this model (or everything will be changed in the future). And not waist time of ppl who is on the verge of leaving if changes are planned.

[Labjax.2465]

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I did argue against the points made. I also said that I could see many of the points raised were reasonable from their viewpoint but I (and others) still disagreed with them, partly due to different viewpoints.

There is little new progress being made in this thread though. Your post is similar to many others in that essentially you are saying you want the game to do well but you don't trust Anet to make the changes they think are required for it to do well (with an added twist of saying they aren't being transparent when they've been very good about that).

There isn't really much more useful to say from that point. You (and others here) don't trust Anet to improve the game in a way that you approve of and you are speculating about the future on that basis. I don't agree but there isn't really anything I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise so I maintain there is little left to discuss in this thread.

I would ask why people should trust Anet in their decisions, in this context. Trust is one of those things that's hard to come by and easy to lose. And as far as I can tell, with the relic situation so far, they shifted gear around in a way that left people in limbo for months, gave them mixed messages on compensation, and eventually landed on the most recent message that makes an existing consistent system (legendaries) inconsistent, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Had this been something that had happened in the space of a week in a planned way, there would still be elements of it to criticize, but at least we could say they carried it out smoothly.

My understanding is you disagree with some others in this thread about the philosophy behind the decision, but maybe you can agree with me that the way Anet has handled this is an absolute mess. And if you can agree it is a mess, maybe you can agree they don't deserve a vote of confidence that they thought this through well. We can come up with rationales for their decision on it after the fact, whether it's a generous and trusting (of them) rationale, or one that suggests greed and forcing a design that people don't want, but were the delivery of the change smoother, I would find it easier to believe they had a solid rationale at all, to begin with.

Edit: Or to put it another way: If the delivery of a change is confusing for the players, I'd think that suggests it was confusing for the developers too. And there is no lack of stories of game development that goes sideways because of mixed messages internally and mismanagement on how to do it. I'd like to hear them explain how they got from point A to point B because the path there does not make sense to me and I'm in doubt that it fully makes sense internally either.

Edited February 22 by Labjax.2465

[Mistwraithe.3106]

I actually think it's likely Anet underestimated or didn't consider the amount of push back they would get from legendary rune owners. I don't think they originally intended to give any compensation towards the legendary relic, then they realised they had to do something, then after thinking about it a while they decided it was easiest or best just to give it to anyone who had a legendary rune.

Note that if I'm correct then this isn't a case of not being transparent, it's a case of having to adapt to the situation. They can't tell you things they haven't decided or realised yet.

2 hours ago, WRay.2391 said:

If they want to be transparent they need to say: we screwed up with legendary runes, legendary relic is exception, future legendaries will never follow this model (or everything will be changed in the future). And not waist time of ppl who is on the verge of leaving if changes are planned.

If that is truly what they think then yes they should perhaps say that. However, I'm pretty sure Anet don't think that, it's what you think. As mentioned above I think Anet misjudged the depth of feeling over the legendary runes but let's face it Anet have made legendary relics work this way because that's how they want them to work.

It's conceivable they could also be a model for future legendaries but they might not be too, or there might not be any further legendaries for years - either way it would be foolish for Anet to say anything about things in the future until it's firmly planned. That's not a case of failing to be transparent, that's sensible business practices!

[Labjax.2465]

2 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I actually think it's likely Anet underestimated or didn't consider the amount of push back they would get from legendary rune owners. I don't think they originally intended to give any compensation towards the legendary relic, then they realised they had to do something, then after thinking about it a while they decided it was easiest or best just to give it to anyone who had a legendary rune.

Note that if I'm correct then this isn't a case of not being transparent, it's a case of having to adapt to the situation. They can't tell you things they haven't decided or realised yet.

Possible, but keep in mind Anet previously added the Legendary Armory (not that long ago in years) and as far as I know, thought ahead on compensation for those who had multiples of the same legendary. It's possible it's not the same teams who made these different decisions and that's the difference, but on the face of it I find it odd the idea that they'd think of compensation in the one situation, one that is definitively leaning into legendaries as a form of permanent progression, and then not think of it with this change and have to be reminded that people care.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

9 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

My understanding is you disagree with some others in this thread about the philosophy behind the decision, but maybe you can agree with me that the way Anet has handled this is an absolute mess. And if you can agree it is a mess, maybe you can agree they don't deserve a vote of confidence that they thought this through well. We can come up with rationales for their decision on it after the fact, whether it's a generous and trusting (of them) rationale, or one that suggests greed and forcing a design that people don't want, but were the delivery of the change smoother, I would find it easier to believe they had a solid rationale at all, to begin with.

Yep, I agree with much of that. I was writing my post above while you were writing yours and as I said there I don't think Anet predicted this level of push back. So yeah, that doesn't reflect well on their ability to understand how some veteran players think.

I've also earlier said that I think the changes themselves (creating relics and how legendary relics work) make decent sense in terms of evolving the game and their need to keep generating revenue in a relatively horizontal progression model.

It's possible to make a misstep with their understanding of a portion of the community while still being competent at developing the game.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

12 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I dont think they are expanding the power locked behind a paywall notion. I think that they are replacing what form that power takes. By stopping development of elite specs (either temporarily or permanently) ANet is left looking for a different way to offer increased power tied to expacs. I think that it is very possible, perhaps even likely, that expac only relics will serve that purpose. Not so much an expansion as a replacement.

I don't think this post by Ashen got enough attention. I think this pretty much nails Anet's reasoning in making relics work this way. They've said they may be releasing more elite specs in the more distant future but in the meantime I think (like Ashen does) that they wanted other ways to deliver new gameplay toys in their expansions and relics are one of those ways (just like elite specs are).

I'm really doing badly at ignoring this thread as I intended, but, darn it, people have been making good arguments and stating their positions clearly! This isn't meant to happen on the internet.

Edited February 22 by Mistwraithe.3106

[Labjax.2465]

2 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Yep, I agree with much of that. I was writing my post above while you were writing yours and as I said there I don't think Anet predicted this level of push back. So yeah, that doesn't reflect well on their ability to understand how some veteran players think.

I've also earlier said that I think the changes themselves (creating relics and how legendary relics work) make decent sense in terms of evolving the game and their need to keep generating revenue in a relatively horizontal progression model.

It's possible to make a misstep with their understanding of a portion of the community while still being competent at developing the game.

For what it's worth, there have been times where I was in a position like yours, trying to be understanding of where a game studio (or sometimes, just a company in general) is coming from when they made decisions that seemed questionable. Without fail, every single game I did this with, I eventually got burned. I'm sure to some a person like me could look cynical emphasizing my doubt and distrust, but I arrived at that point after consistently being shown that when I gave a studio leeway, they ran with it. And I mean, realistically, when I didn't give them leeway, they're usually gonna do stuff that puts a lot of people off anyway, but at least with the 2nd one I get to call them out on it and offer a little moral support to those who are deep in attachment to the game still. Because I've also seen numerous times that when people like me don't speak up, the narrative tends to get steered into "everything is fine" by those who are willing to put up with the latest whims of a game studio.

[Geralt.7519]

14 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

the fact all of it combined was leading the game to its grave

What makes you think the game is dying?

In game it's pretty thriving and looking at financial reports they seem stable if not slightly rising over the last 10 years, there's a big drop after release but that's normal in any game.

GW2 is not dying, the changes they're making are not to save a game from its grave, from a business perspective I'd say they're probably trying to earn more, that's what publicly traded companies always do.

 

14 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

For veterans it goes even beyond that, because as more and more elements fall away (having every character, having legendaries, mastering types of content, etc.) one might lose interest in the game. Attributing this to "oh the game has changed, that's why" is usually most players first assumption.

Veterans "fatigue" can indeed be a thing and you're right in that some players might attribute losing interest to changes, tho I'd say that usually happens in time and it's different than disliking very specific changes or feeling like your "trust" in the game has been broken (like trust in legendaries in GW2 specific case).

What I don't agree with is the notion that players should adapt to whatever changes devs make. No they shouldn't.

In the end, games are products you pay for. When you're not satisfied with a product anymore, for whatever reason, you stop paying for it, games should be treated the same way tho it's quite more difficult since there's a sort of emotional attachment to games that you usually don't have for other types of products.

Sunk cost fallacy is also a thing in MMOs.

 

 

 

Edited February 22 by Geralt.7519

[witchyivy.7980]

On 2/19/2024 at 6:20 PM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I also find myself looping back to what I asked in my first post in this thread: what should Anet be doing to provide more goals for veteran players? (as I have a strong hunch this is one reason they are doing the Legend Relic differently).

I haven't seen many answers. One answer I did see recently in this thread (tho I doubt they were trying to answer my question or even necessarily aware of it) was more maps/metas like HoT (and I think they mentioned LWS3) as those were still the maps they most enjoyed revisiting. I think that sort of feedback is useful for Anet. It may not be listened to as more difficult and potentially confusing maps are might appeal less to the new players Anet want to attract BUT I think a strong case can be made that Anet makes a lot of money from vets (they presumably have the numbers) so doing something like this could be a winner?

I think this is a fair question, though what do you define as veteran players? I ask so I can get a better idea where you are coming from. At this point, I would consider myself a veteran player. I've played a lot of the end game content, though not all of it (for example, I haven't touched strikes yet). I have at least 2k+ hours in the game since I started playing 3.5 years ago. Would I be a veteran player by your definition?

If I'm considered a veteran player, here's what I would like to see in terms of Anet providing more goals/things to do for veteran players without needing to run maintenance on a legendary piece of gear:

-Add griffon races to the SOTO maps, especially Skywatch and Amnytas. They are literally made for it. Put some achievement points, fancy title, and/or a fun skin (like the Tyria beetle racing scarf or the Halloween version) behind it.
-Add a griffon or beetle race to Inner Nayos.
-Add to core Tyria maps with a new jumping puzzle or mini dungeon to a few. Give me an interesting reason to go back to Brisban Wildlands or whatever and not just for world complete. This wouldn't have to necessarily expand the zone (so it wouldn't affect world complete), just add to it.
-Add at least one new activity to each festival per year, or add another festival-only location like Festival of the Four Winds has with the Labyrinthine Cliffs and Halloween has with the Mad King's Labyrinth.
-Add a jumping puzzle or mini dungeon (or both) to SOTO maps. Right now, it doesn't feel like there's a lot to do in those areas besides map complete, do the meta, and farm rifts.
-Why not add certain skins to achievements in upcoming content? It's a cool aesthetic thing that says "Hey, I did this" instead of forcing people to do content to run maintenance on what should be a standard legendary item. There is precedent for putting specific skins behind content, like the luminescent armor from the Silverwastes/LWS2. Even though I find the story boring af, I do occasionally go back to it to work on these achievements.
-Add a new raid wing.
-Make a new dungeon. Dungeons don't have to be dead.
-Add a legendary underwater helmet. Do we need it? Not really since there isn't a lot of underwater content. But I would probably work on getting one anyway because I'm a completionist.
-Add another activity that isn't PVP. Currently, there's only one (Sanctum Sprint) and every time "Participate in an Activity" shows up on my PVE only dailies, I don't even bother to check because it seems like I'm never lucky enough to have Sanctum Sprint on those days.
-Update the loot tables for older content to make it more enticing (Twisted Marionette comes to mind).

These are just my opinions, and I know some will disagree with them. However, these show that there is content that can be added that has the potential to be engaging—without forcing people to run maintenance on a legendary item. Some of these ideas could be implemented to old or new content.

Legendaries have been my endgame goal for a long time. The convenience with swapping to any stat in the game when out of combat is enticing because that means I can try new builds and playstyles whenever the heck I want. Which means I can be prepared for new content whenever I'm able to jump into it, or ready to spice up older content by replaying it on a different spec. There are so many things to do on the way to getting a legendary that it's a goal (with subgoals) in itself for new and veteran players. You don't have to change how legendaries work to make people engage with the content.

I also have other goals that I'm working on. Some are not driven by legendaries (like learning to command and block at Triple Trouble and becoming a more proficient griffon flyer) and some are (like learning raids, which is driven by the goal of completing leggy armor).

This change is making me hesitant to work on other legendaries, which is not great because that drives 85% of my gameplay right now. My main concern is that they will change all legendaries to match how the legendary relic works, and they're no longer future proof.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, Geralt.7519 said:

What makes you think the game is dying?

In game it's pretty thriving and looking at financial reports they seem stable if not slightly rising over the last 10 years, there's a big drop after release but that's normal in any game.

GW2 is not dying, the changes they're making are not to save a game from its grave, from a business perspective I'd say they're probably trying to earn more, that's what publicly traded companies always do.

That's why I was referring to previous eras: the determination here being "was" (and the answer here is: continuous declining revenue YoY until IBS). Notice that a some changes which have lead to the game being better positioned were criticized in the past too (and are to this day).

Best example: the switch to encouraging (or demanding) longer player engagement. Turns out, having players around longer is beneficial for the game overall. That didn't stop players from complaining about "grind" though.

Another example is the merging of expansions and the free living world model into the current mini expansion model. If it was up to many players, living world would/should have remained free (obviously, no one has to advocate for a price increase) but the reality is that in that situation, the price would have been added some where else (see build and equipment templates for example).

Meanwhile there is continuous expansion on what I like to call "limited revenue opportunities". Bank slots, bags slots, template slots, shared inventory slots, etc. are all items which see regular increases. The reason for this is simple to deduce: revenue bumps when necessary. Some of these items though will yield less and less meaning future revenue bumps will decline per (especially veteran) player.
 

Quote

 

Veterans "fatigue" can indeed be a thing and you're right in that some players might attribute losing interest to changes, tho I'd say that usually happens in time and it's different than disliking very specific changes or feeling like your "trust" in the game has been broken (like trust in legendaries in GW2 specific case).

 

Legendaries changed multiple times over this games lifecycle. Their current implementation is far from what it once was. It makes sense that players gravitate to their personal most beneficial implementation.

That does not have to coincide with the maximum benefit to the game though. See the wider appeal and access to legendary gear with SotO (and ever since the legendary armory was introduced) but the also price hike this brought. Players are fast to attribute and cheer on changes when they feel that "they" are benefiting, but will immediately critique when changes might benefit the game overall (which is more abstract to most), but not them personally.

If issues arise with the current implementation, those issues need addressing.

Quote

What I don't agree with is the notion that players should adapt to whatever changes devs make. No they shouldn't.

That's not what anyone demands, at least I am not. A bit more based or realistic expectations though can be expected. Yet even that is not necessary, given the developers will have to decide on what they have to do in order for ends to meet.

If they decide that there needs to be a new carrot, because say masteries are getting out of hand for new players to catch up to (we are up to mastery rank 530 by now) and player retention is poor (it always has been, in all areas of the game), there needs to be more incentives for players to purchase the latest expansions more often (because revenue goals are a thing and the alternative is other types of monetization), then the design will get changed out of necessity.

Again, I see a lot of complaining, but usually no suggestions how some of these issues could get addressed in a different manner.

Quote

 

In the end, games are products you pay for. When you're not satisfied with a product anymore, for whatever reason, you stop paying for it, games should be treated the same way tho it's quite more difficult since there's a sort of emotional attachment to games that you usually don't have for other types of products.

Sunk cost fallacy is also a thing in MMOs.

 

Every player is free to come and go ad they see fit. Absolutely. We have been in a segment of players returning after over 10 years of abstinence to a very different game which some enjoy now. The same can be true for players now which have burnt out or ones which are not satisfied with the content they are receiving at the price offered.

Edited February 22 by Cyninja.2954

[Minna.7895]

22 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

 

And did you consider elite specs a problem?

 

(I know it wasn't directed at me but anyways:)

No of course not, they were

a) content in itself in my opinion just like weaponmastery or the new weapons are, they were not part of legendary gear in any way (apples/bananas)

b) you were able to have them unlocked as soon as the expansion dropped and not only after the first playthrough or whatever achievements - there are always enough hp in coretyria+ former expansions to have them ready to go instantly

 

But ofc I do see that this was mostly focused on the "having to BUY the expansion to get access" thing, I'm not even sure that that is the biggest issue with the current change, to me it really is more the "don't get access instantly even if you bought it" thing - but yeah they should just behave like any other legendary gear and be available (even if you didn't buy but as I said, not my biggest complaint).

[Minna.7895]

On 2/20/2024 at 7:36 PM, Linken.6345 said:

With the downscaling how do you expect this to happen?

Well, first off all I didn't even consider that, but let's go with it:

The reason you are overpowered in OW despite being downscaled is mostly the access to more (3 instead of 1 or 2, depending on where you are) and better (elite) traitlines, weaponswap, all skills available, etc.

So it would solely depend on how they would do the raisinglvlcapstuff and what powercreep it would entail exactly. As said before, I don't think they ever will and while I'm personally not that opposed, I'm not really a fan either (otherwise I would be playing other games instead of this one).

But going on with the possibilities for my earlier and absolute random example of 5k to 20k to happen: if they raised the cap and gave you access to a 4th traitline, maybe even a better one (superelite) maybe access to another superskill or something, whatever floats your boat and down the line of say 3 xpacs with raised lvlcaps and powercreep: voila you are there! Content made sorta irrelevant!  Btw the exact reason that it's not gonna happen, they won't do that to themselves and also as someone else pointed out it also may kill the game.

[witchyivy.7980]

56 minutes ago, Minna.7895 said:

But ofc I do see that this was mostly focused on the "having to BUY the expansion to get access" thing, I'm not even sure that that is the biggest issue with the current change, to me it really is more the "don't get access instantly even if you bought it" thing - but yeah they should just behave like any other legendary gear and be available (even if you didn't buy but as I said, not my biggest complaint).

This made me stop and think. Are we (the general "we") arguing over the same thing, or are we all on different pages? Because I thought the contentious point was the "you don't get access instantly even if you bought it," not "having to buy the expansion to get access." Those are two similar yet different arguments.

I went back to the original news post, and it says this:

Quote

Legendary relics will work a bit differently than other legendary equipment, in that players will need to unlock new relic effects for future expansions in order to make use of them with their legendary relic.

The part that's badly worded is "...in that players will need to unlock new relic effects for future expansions in order to..." Did they mean "from future expansions" not "for"? Or did they mean "in future expansions"? As in, "from (purchasing) future expansions"? Or do they mean "doing repetitive and potentially uninteresting content in future expansions"?

Like I said, those are two different arguments, and I have different feelings about each.

[Minna.7895]

7 minutes ago, witchyivy.7980 said:

This made me stop and think. Are we (the general "we") arguing over the same thing, or are we all on different pages? Because I thought the contentious point was the "you don't get access instantly even if you bought it," not "having to buy the expansion to get access." Those are two similar yet different arguments.

I went back to the original news post, and it says this:

The part that's badly worded is "...in that players will need to unlock new relic effects for future expansions in order to..." Did they mean "from future expansions" not "for"? Or did they mean "in future expansions"? As in, "from (purchasing) future expansions"? Or do they mean "doing repetitive and potentially uninteresting content in future expansions"?

Like I said, those are two different arguments, and I have different feelings about each.

I do believe it is the last one, and that's also the one I believed most of the "we" to argument over, but someone earlier pointed out that this also means (hidden but included) for being able to do that potentially uninteresting content you have to firstly BUY it aswell and made that out to be the worst point of it (and potentially the reason for the change? I dunno) - anyways that was where that elitespec reference came in that I answered to.

This whole 19 pages topic is really weird though in general. This change has so many layers (of wrong) that affect different players in different ways, I guess that might be the reason.