Legendary Relics are Coming Soon

[Omega.6801]

6 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Reading lots of forums posts, logic, life experience, extrapolation and guesswork. Note that I pepper my posts with phrases like "I think" and this is "my take". It's "my" conclusion but I don't anywhere near enough evidence to state that I'm correct, it's just a logical guess based on what I do know.

A few people rebutted it and said that I was wrong. So maybe I'm wrong. OTOH, two of those rebuttals stated they weren't short of goals which is very much the opposite of what I've seen other veteran players post in this forum and even in this thread. So maybe those two were not representative of the group at large?

One thing that gets me in this debate, and it's repeated in several recent posts in this thread, is the assertion about how much grind and effort the scheme used by the legendary relic entails and how it's a betrayal of the legendary model. This seems hyperbole. I've created 10 or so legendaries now (weapons, armour and Conflux) and it never really crossed my mind that getting access to all stats bonuses was a big feature. I was crafting ascended (or stat swapping existing ascended) happily for whatever stats I wanted long before I started crafting Legendary equipment and had gone about unlocking the stats I wanted without thinking twice as part of playing the game. It wasn't a big deal.

The big features I wanted from Legendary items were having it across all characters, instant stat swapping, ability to remove/swap runes/sigils/infusions and of course the bling is a nice reward. Unlocking stat combos wasn't something I really thought of. I get that it's part of how Legendaries work but it seems a minor part? Several people have already pointed out that SOTO relics are relatively easy to unlock too.

Everything here is an opinion, a feeling, a thought. This topic does not lend itself to hard facts, science, tables or numbers.

As stated, the games has many different goals, going for new stat combinations released with an expansion is a very minor one in my experience, for me and for many players I have interacted with. The one exception I can remember was the combination of ascended stats for EoD backpieces but that was an availability issue ANet could have mended by increasing availability, no need to temper with legendaries to solve this issue.

Please do not interlock "it will be grindy" with "it's a betrayal". As they are completey different arguments.

Very few arguments for the first have been made. Most people are very well aware that, if ANet follows the aquisition process they have been doing so far, getting the relics will not be hard, maybe a few exceptions and maybe there will be a few hurdles for some players (WvW'ers ho don't like PvE, people who can't do certain achis because of disabilities and so on).

"It's a betrayal" is the argument that the new way of doing relics break a "rule" ANet set up over a decade ago. One can argue that this rule should have never existed, and I would probably even agree to that. But that is not the point as the rule stands and deviating from it now sets a precedent that destroys trust. Also, an argument can be made that this new way of doing legendaries is not "future proof". This new legendary relic will feel a lot worse three years down the line when players have to sift throuogh dead, forgotten, broken or bugged out content to complete their legendary. Same is true should players take a break. Both not an issuea with the existing legendaries.

Legendaries come with many big features and it is true, having all stats permanently and instantly unlocked is only one of them. However, it is one of them and taking it away is lessening the value.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

11 minutes ago, Omega.6801 said:

Everything here is an opinion, a feeling, a thought. This topic does not lend itself to hard facts, science, tables or numbers.

As stated, the games has many different goals, going for new stat combinations released with an expansion is a very minor one in my experience, for me and for many players I have interacted with. The one exception I can remember was the combination of ascended stats for EoD backpieces but that was an availability issue ANet could have mended by increasing availability, no need to temper with legendaries to solve this issue.

Please do not interlock "it will be grindy" with "it's a betrayal". As they are completey different arguments.

Very few arguments for the first have been made. Most people are very well aware that, if ANet follows the aquisition process they have been doing so far, getting the relics will not be hard, maybe a few exceptions and maybe there will be a few hurdles for some players (WvW'ers ho don't like PvE, people who can't do certain achis because of disabilities and so on).

"It's a betrayal" is the argument that the new way of doing relics break a "rule" ANet set up over a decade ago. One can argue that this rule should have never existed, and I would probably even agree to that. But that is not the point as the rule stands and deviating from it now sets a precedent that destroys trust. Also, an argument can be made that this new way of doing legendaries is not "future proof". This new legendary relic will feel a lot worse three years down the line when players have to sift throuogh dead, forgotten, broken or bugged out content to complete their legendary. Same is true should players take a break. Both not an issuea with the existing legendaries.

Legendaries come with many big features and it is true, having all stats permanently and instantly unlocked is only one of them. However, it is one of them and taking it away is lessening the value.

OK, so the problem is that legendary relics break a rule or precedent that Anet created ages ago. You agree that it's not a major rule and that it might have even made sense to not have the rule.

So essentially your complaint is that Anet are changing how something works (or more specifically making a new legendary not work exactly the same as the old legendaries, since they aren't changing the rules for the old legendaries).

It seems to me that this is entirely encapsulated in Anet's job as developers of the game. It's literally their job to change things to make the game work better in their view and a host of other goals.

It's entirely reasonable for players to complain when they disagree with those changes. So fair enough.

But given we agree the change is fairly minor and possibly even makes sense, it starts seeming like nit picking rather than a major complaint. It's probably still worth a post or two, but we're 18 pages in now and this is far from the only thread on the topic...

[Astralporing.1957]

12 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

OK, so the problem is that legendary relics break a rule or precedent that Anet created ages ago. You agree that it's not a major rule and that it might have even made sense to not have the rule.

So essentially your complaint is that Anet are changing how something works (or more specifically making a new legendary not work exactly the same as the old legendaries, since they aren't changing the rules for the old legendaries).

It seems to me that this is entirely encapsulated in Anet's job as developers of the game. It's literally their job to change things to make the game work better in their view and a host of other goals.

It's entirely reasonable for players to complain when they disagree with those changes. So fair enough.

But given we agree the change is fairly minor and possibly even makes sense, it starts seeming like nit picking rather than a major complaint. It's probably still worth a post or two, but we're 18 pages in now and this is far from the only thread on the topic...

Problem is that if they are fine with changing a precedent like that, they may decide to change other precedents as well. Also, the change itself may seem minor, but the consequences of that change are anything but. Basically, it's a first step on a path where Legendaries are no longer "future-proofed" against any forms of gear grind. And once a first exception is made, it becomes much, much  easier to add a second one.

That is the primary fear behind complains. It's not about the change itself, but the implied change in design direction behind it.

Also, if it's indeed so minor, they should have no issue with dropping that idea, right?

[WRay.2391]

45 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Problem is that if they are fine with changing a precedent like that, they may decide to change other precedents as well. Also, the change itself may seem minor, but the consequences of that change are anything but. Basically, it's a first step on a path where Legendaries are no longer "future-proofed" against any forms of gear grind. And once a first exception is made, it becomes much, much  easier to add a second one.

That is the primary fear behind complains. It's not about the change itself, but the implied change in design direction behind it.

Also, if it's indeed so minor, they should have no issue with dropping that idea, right?

This. In addition this decision made to give developers a lazy way to set goal for player instead of creating content. Similar example is Destiny and weapon sunsetting. Didn't work out very well for them.

[Sjentra.3409]

Don't forget; they also mentioned that certain relics would be acquired via strikes/raids. So it could be like the dungeons of the past where you needed the gear to do the dungeon; but also couldn't get the gear without doing the dungeon.

[Ashen.2907]

10 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

since they aren't changing the rules for the old legendaries)

Except that they are.

Legendary runes included the 6th slot bonus and were future proof for that effect. Now that is no longer the case.

[idpersona.3810]

15 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Problem is that if they are fine with changing a precedent like that, they may decide to change other precedents as well. Also, the change itself may seem minor, but the consequences of that change are anything but. Basically, it's a first step on a path where Legendaries are no longer "future-proofed" against any forms of gear grind. And once a first exception is made, it becomes much, much  easier to add a second one.

That is the primary fear behind complains. It's not about the change itself, but the implied change in design direction behind it.

Also, if it's indeed so minor, they should have no issue with dropping that idea, right?

Also seconding (thirding?) this.

The idea of having to run maintenance on a legendary every 3 months is really bothersome.
And while some argue that unlocking relics is easy, coming back from a break is not going to be so. Or at least will be time consuming. I've done all of the SotO content generally (all story, each strike and meta, etc). I still have a couple of the relics to unlock. I had to go and look up what specifically needs to get done for them. I don't particularly want to keep running through the content I got bored of a while ago. The legendary rune was supposed to solve that particular step for me. So for me personally, the new direction is a fairly large downgrade in enjoyment. 

[Omega.6801]

15 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

OK, so the problem is that legendary relics break a rule or precedent that Anet created ages ago. You agree that it's not a major rule and that it might have even made sense to not have the rule.

So essentially your complaint is that Anet are changing how something works (or more specifically making a new legendary not work exactly the same as the old legendaries, since they aren't changing the rules for the old legendaries).

It seems to me that this is entirely encapsulated in Anet's job as developers of the game. It's literally their job to change things to make the game work better in their view and a host of other goals.

It's entirely reasonable for players to complain when they disagree with those changes. So fair enough.

But given we agree the change is fairly minor and possibly even makes sense, it starts seeming like nit picking rather than a major complaint. It's probably still worth a post or two, but we're 18 pages in now and this is far from the only thread on the topic...

If it were a minor change, we wouldn't be arguing for 18 pages. But sure, we're all exagerating, we're blowing things out of proportions, no need to take us serious. It's fine.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

21 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Problem is that if they are fine with changing a precedent like that, they may decide to change other precedents as well. Also, the change itself may seem minor, but the consequences of that change are anything but. Basically, it's a first step on a path where Legendaries are no longer "future-proofed" against any forms of gear grind. And once a first exception is made, it becomes much, much  easier to add a second one.

That is the primary fear behind complains. It's not about the change itself, but the implied change in design direction behind it.

Also, if it's indeed so minor, they should have no issue with dropping that idea, right?

I think you are right that the fear this is just one step down a slippery slope is a big factor in why this thread is so long (and other similar threads).

That's fair enough I guess, tho I think when judging people (including Anet) you really need to put more weight on what you know about them, their history and what they are saying currently rather than what they might speculatively do in the future. I've heard people try to argue that Anet is untrustworthy or don't know how to design a good game with horizontal progression etc, but the obvious counter argument to that is that GW2 exists and is the only similar game (that I am aware of) in the world. Saying that a group of people who have successfully done something rare for the last 11 years don't know how to do that thing is tenuous (yes I know teams change, the founders aren't there any more, etc, but still, you have to give them SOME credit!).

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?

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I think you are right that the fear this is just one step down a slippery slope is a big factor in why this thread is so long (and other similar threads).

That's fair enough I guess, tho I think when judging people (including Anet) you really need to put more weight on what you know about them, their history and what they are saying currently rather than what they might speculatively do in the future. I've heard people try to argue that Anet is untrustworthy or don't know how to design a good game with horizontal progression etc, but the obvious counter argument to that is that GW2 exists and is the only similar game (that I am aware of) in the world. Saying that a group of people who have successfully done something rare for the last 11 years don't know how to do that thing is tenuous (yes I know teams change, the founders aren't there any more, etc, but still, you have to give them SOME credit!).

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?

Another thing to notice is that many if any of the developers that  made that good horizontal game aint  with Anet anymore so it is quite possible that the new devs dont know how to do a good horizontal game. 

[Minna.7895]

On 2/19/2024 at 2:19 AM, Astralporing.1957 said:

Problem is that if they are fine with changing a precedent like that, they may decide to change other precedents as well. Also, the change itself may seem minor, but the consequences of that change are anything but. Basically, it's a first step on a path where Legendaries are no longer "future-proofed" against any forms of gear grind. And once a first exception is made, it becomes much, much  easier to add a second one.

That is the primary fear behind complains. It's not about the change itself, but the implied change in design direction behind it.

Also, if it's indeed so minor, they should have no issue with dropping that idea, right?

agreed, additionally the relic is not really something new they just invented and added - it replaced the 6th runebonus, so ofc it is expected to behave in the same way the former legendary item did (or would have done if it hadn't been deleted to make it a relic instead). If it was something they newly added on top of everything existing, sure we may have that same conversation (because it would still be a step in the wrong direction) but it would be on other grounds and most likely not as heated (because it would not be about something they deleted from already existing legendary gear). 

[Astralporing.1957]

10 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I think you are right that the fear this is just one step down a slippery slope is a big factor in why this thread is so long (and other similar threads).

That's fair enough I guess, tho I think when judging people (including Anet) you really need to put more weight on what you know about them, their history and what they are saying currently rather than what they might speculatively do in the future. I've heard people try to argue that Anet is untrustworthy or don't know how to design a good game with horizontal progression etc, but the obvious counter argument to that is that GW2 exists and is the only similar game (that I am aware of) in the world. Saying that a group of people who have successfully done something rare for the last 11 years don't know how to do that thing is tenuous (yes I know teams change, the founders aren't there any more, etc, but still, you have to give them SOME credit!).

Oh. i know they can design a game with good horizontal progression (or at least the devs that originally designed this game could, because this team is not exactly the same). It's just there's a lot suggesting they no longer want to. I mean, they tried to move to the vertical progression system barely three months into the game, and stopped only because the community reacted very negatively to the idea. Not to mention, that at least some people of those that are in charge now are those that were in charge of that ascended gear idea (and were talking about stuff like wanting to increase level cap, and continuing with gear progression beyond ascended). And it's not like the legendary relic change is the first attempt at changing the no gear progression status quo recently (need i say "jade bots"?).

It's exactly because i put a lot of weight on what i know about Anet that i am reacting the way i do.

[Minna.7895]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Oh. i know they can design a game with good horizontal progression (or at least the devs that originally designed this game could, because this team is not exactly the same). It's just there's a lot suggesting they no longer want to. I mean, they tried to move to the vertical progression system barely three months into the game, and stopped only because the community reacted very negatively to the idea. Not to mention, that at least some people of those that are in charge now are those that were in charge of that ascended gear idea (and were talking about stuff like wanting to increase level cap, and continuing with gear progression beyond ascended). And it's not like the legendary relic change is the first attempt at changing the no gear progression status quo recently (need i say "jade bots"?).

It's exactly because i put a lot of weight on what i know about Anet that i am reacting the way i do.

Personally I wouldn't even be against LVL cap raising and new gear lvl introduction (that would make old content very easy, maybe even easy enough that anyone can make it, like the nowadays 5k Hi DPS would then be 20k+ maybe?) BUT only if they keep legendary gear always on the top gear stats as they promised ofc. I wouldn't be too opposed to grinding to the new lvlcap, I will not be okay grinding new gear after investing more ressources than ever would have been needed for any gear in legendaries whatsoever.

They won't do any of that though because if they make all old content kinda oneshot, they need to deliver good new content in even bigger amounts than they can ever deliver.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, Minna.7895 said:

Personally I wouldn't even be against LVL cap raising and new gear lvl introduction (that would make old content very easy, maybe even easy enough that anyone can make it, like the nowadays 5k Hi DPS would then be 20k+ maybe?) BUT only if they keep legendary gear always on the top gear stats as they promised ofc.

When the concerns about possibility of upping level cap appeared, players asked devs to clarify if the "BiS" promise would cover that. Devs refused to answer. That should tell you something.

Fortunately player response then was strong enough to stop those kinds of ideas. I'm not so sure about today, though.

Edited February 20 by Astralporing.1957

[Linken.6345]

5 hours ago, Minna.7895 said:

Snip (that would make old content very easy, maybe even easy enough that anyone can make it, like the nowadays 5k Hi DPS would then be 20k+ maybe?) Snip

With the downscaling how do you expect this to happen?

[yann.1946]

8 hours ago, Minna.7895 said:

Personally I wouldn't even be against LVL cap raising and new gear lvl introduction (that would make old content very easy, maybe even easy enough that anyone can make it, like the nowadays 5k Hi DPS would then be 20k+ maybe?) BUT only if they keep legendary gear always on the top gear stats as they promised ofc. I wouldn't be too opposed to grinding to the new lvlcap, I will not be okay grinding new gear after investing more ressources than ever would have been needed for any gear in legendaries whatsoever.

They won't do any of that though because if they make all old content kinda oneshot, they need to deliver good new content in even bigger amounts than they can ever deliver.

This absolutely should never happen. It would destroy what makes gw2 so good.

 

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

22 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I think you are right that the fear this is just one step down a slippery slope is a big factor in why this thread is so long (and other similar threads).

That's fair enough I guess, tho I think when judging people (including Anet) you really need to put more weight on what you know about them, their history and what they are saying currently rather than what they might speculatively do in the future.

But we aren't debating what they might "speculatively" do in the future. We're talking about the decision that they have actively taken to change the way that legendary items work. That is a choice they've made, which indicates that they have decided that legendaries in their current form do NOT operate in a way that aligns with their future direction for this game. It tells us that they will probably make any future legendaries (such as a breather) to function the same way. After all, having made this change of direction, why would they go back?

And having introduced some legendaries that work this way, they can start to make the argument that it makes sense to revisit ALL the old legendaries in due course, to get them in line. After all, if you're having to do content to unlock some of your legendary armoury, it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't need to do it for the rest, does it?

It's pretty clearly a way to force players to buy expansions to get access to choices they used to get automatically. It's probably going to be carried out in conjunction with new options being overpowered, forcing people to buy those expansions to get access to the meta. Anyone that doesn't see which way this slope is sliding, isn't paying attention.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

1 hour ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

But we aren't debating what they might "speculatively" do in the future.

Most of your post is exactly that, speculating that this change means they will in future make some other change.

That said, I'm in the opposite camp anyway. I want Anet to have plenty of money to continue to improve and add to GW2 so I'm perfectly happy with having to buy their new yearly expansions to get new features. That even includes new stat combinations on legendaries, I would regard that as a pretty minor issue. Boo, hiss, I hear...

Probably time for me to give up on this thread. Seems like some of the more vocal (ie posting regularly) members on the forum, including in this thread, want the game to be improving and getting new content but they also want this to happen without anyone, particularly them, having to spend any money (let alone play any new content, heaven forbid!). I don't see how this is possible but I guess people want impossible things all the time. Let's hope you get them.

Edited February 20 by Mistwraithe.3106

[Omega.6801]

9 minutes ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Most of your post is exactly that, speculating that this change means they will in future make some other change.

That said, I'm in the opposite camp anyway. I want Anet to have plenty of money to continue to improve and add to GW2 so I'm perfectly happy with having to buy their new yearly expansions to get new features. That even includes new stat combinations on legendaries, I would regard that as a pretty minor issue. Boo, hiss, I hear...

Probably time for me to give up on this thread. Seems like some of the more vocal members on the forum, including in this thread, want the game to be improving and getting new content but they also want this to happen without anyone, particularly them, having to spend any money (let alone play any new content, heaven forbid!). I don't see how this is possible but I guess people want impossible things all the time. Let's hope you get them.

I can only speak for myself, but I think I might be part of those vocal members. And as the term is used, being vocal most of the time means being wrong and anoying. Sure, so let's answer once more and be wrong and anoying.

I think within this thread I have stated four or so times by now that:
1) I don't mind playing content. I will do so for skins, AP,  rewards, hell I'll do it for the fun of it, if it's fun. No need for me to gate relics behind content. I do not need to be entertained or motivated by gating relics behind content as I will play the content anyway for other reasons.
2) I don't mind paying for content. I may not have mentioned it in detail, because I generally want to avoid sounding like the "I'm a whale btw"-guy, but so far I have purchased the ultimate edition of every expansion and made a few, not a lot but a few gem purchases over the years. I am aware that things cost money, that people want to get paid and that this game doesn't develop itself. That being said. Seing where the game is going and how I am experiencing SotO so far, this is probably going to change for me. Not just for the relic and not just for the topic discussed in this thread. So far SotO just doesn't sit well with me and while I know it isn't fully released, I'm just not wow'd the way I would like to be.

[Ashen.2907]

On 2/19/2024 at 3:20 PM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

put more weight on what you know about them, their history and what they are saying currently rather than what they might speculatively do in the future.

Agreed.

And what they are saying is that they are removing functionality from existing legendary gear. I know that they have gone back on their word previously (denying it despite interviews preserved via the internet's long memory). So, their history lends credence to those with concerns.

Do I believe that this could be the beginning of a new direction/slippery slope? Yes.

Do I believe that it definitely is such? Not necessarily.

Do I believe that it almost certainly would be if ANet didn't see some degree of push back? Absolutely.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

8 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Most of your post is exactly that, speculating that this change means they will in future make some other change.

That said, I'm in the opposite camp anyway. I want Anet to have plenty of money to continue to improve and add to GW2 so I'm perfectly happy with having to buy their new yearly expansions to get new features. That even includes new stat combinations on legendaries, I would regard that as a pretty minor issue. Boo, hiss, I hear...

Probably time for me to give up on this thread. Seems like some of the more vocal (ie posting regularly) members on the forum, including in this thread, want the game to be improving and getting new content but they also want this to happen without anyone, particularly them, having to spend any money (let alone play any new content, heaven forbid!). I don't see how this is possible but I guess people want impossible things all the time. Let's hope you get them.

"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.

 

[yann.1946]

43 minutes 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 mean, the changes are transparent.whether they are honest, I can't judge yet.

[Labjax.2465]

9 hours ago, Omega.6801 said:

I can only speak for myself, but I think I might be part of those vocal members. And as the term is used, being vocal most of the time means being wrong and anoying. Sure, so let's answer once more and be wrong and anoying.

I think within this thread I have stated four or so times by now that:
1) I don't mind playing content. I will do so for skins, AP,  rewards, hell I'll do it for the fun of it, if it's fun. No need for me to gate relics behind content. I do not need to be entertained or motivated by gating relics behind content as I will play the content anyway for other reasons.
2) I don't mind paying for content. I may not have mentioned it in detail, because I generally want to avoid sounding like the "I'm a whale btw"-guy, but so far I have purchased the ultimate edition of every expansion and made a few, not a lot but a few gem purchases over the years. I am aware that things cost money, that people want to get paid and that this game doesn't develop itself. That being said. Seing where the game is going and how I am experiencing SotO so far, this is probably going to change for me. Not just for the relic and not just for the topic discussed in this thread. So far SotO just doesn't sit well with me and while I know it isn't fully released, I'm just not wow'd the way I would like to be.

I just don't know what they think they're making money on going forward because the more I read posts like this, the more I get the sense Anet is playing fast and loose with loyal fans and loyal spenders alike to chase hypothetical revenue from a different game model. I mean, I'm not sure anyone has dug into the psychology of legendaries and big spenders yet, on top of everything else. Some people spend a lot on gems to convert them to gold so they can buy straight legendary weapons or ease the ones that can't be bought out by purchasing the expensive materials, right? I can hardly think those people are happy if they feel like what they spent real money on is being messed with. And going forward, how much is it really going to feel worth it to shell out the money for those kind of people if legendaries aren't guaranteed to be a permanent convenience.

I've never been a fan of MTX-based models, but it's the model they have and what they kind of have to do to work with subscription-less model, and I don't understand from a purely financial standpoint what they're doing going forward. Feels like watching someone pull pieces out of a jenga tower while saying they're making it sturdier. I'm not convinced the current team understands the seriousness of messing this heavily with a live model developed over the course of 10+ years. More I think about it, more it gives me similar vibes to the programming trope where a person looks at code--theirs from months/years ago or someone else's--goes "this doesn't make any sense," rewrites it, and then later realizes why it was written the way it was, after sinking a bunch of time into something else. Only in this case the consequences are felt by a live, paying audience.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

4 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I mean, the changes are transparent.whether they are honest, I can't judge yet.

The changes might be transparent, but the reasons for making that change aren't. There must have been some thought behind altering the way that legendaries operate, but ANET aren't sharing that with us.

If it isn't to introduce a form of FOMO by the back door, I don't know what those reasons are.

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

The changes might be transparent, but the reasons for making that change aren't. There must have been some thought behind altering the way that legendaries operate, but ANET aren't sharing that with us.

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.

1 hour ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

If it isn't to introduce a form of FOMO by the back door, I don't know what those reasons are.