Legendary Relics Don't Work as they were Announced [Merged]

[Cyninja.2954]

9 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Runes were ~300-350 gold/piece before whole Relic madness started. So, people ended up overpaying 550-600 gold to save 500 gold from a price that is also extremely overinflated (and likely will drop down by several hundred gold in around half a year at most). And all that just to regain a functionality that was removed from runes before.

Doesn't sound like "free" or "cheap" to me.

and players which had no legendary runes, thus had no access to the 6 piece bonus in form of a legendary had the chance to get the same bonus for the price of 2-3 legendary runes instead of 6 (prices doubled when players assumed you got compensated and teippled when it became clear that 1 legendary rune was sufficient).

That 6 piece bonus is now available to everyone at a reduced cost, even at inflated prices of the legendary relic atm, than getting 6 legendary runes in the past (when they were far cheaper). Which is far more important for build craft than having the 6 runes, given runes are pure stats now and the amount of decent stat combinations now available (meaning budget options are even more viable).

Players love to complain about miscommunication when it's not in their favor and love to let it slide when it is.

Okay, let's actually talk clarification and correction:

- remove legendary relics from any player who doesn't own at least 6 legendary runes

- provide compensation instead of free relic based on the amount of runes owned 

that's what the original announcement stated and what made alot of players craft multiple runes.

Now also provide SotO relic access for everyone who still owns a legendary relic.

I wonder how many players will now come and complain that they lost access to the legendary relic given they only crafted 1 rune? 

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[Sweetbread.3678]

5 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

The Living World model of the past was not generosity or charity either; it was an incentive for existing players to stick around and a cost for not being there on those who weren't.

Jesus Christ, they gave away the content for free to anyone who logged in a single time during it's release; didn't even have to be an active player, just a single 20 second log in within a 2-3 month window and it was given out for free. And then they gave it away for free AGAIN during the Return To events. A player could easily have dropped $30 on Path of Fire in September of 2017 and gotten every piece of content released up until EoD in February of 2022 for free. That's $30 for roughly 4 and a half years of content, and you're over here acting like its some shady extortionist business practice. Want some context for how absurd that is? Wanna compare that to WoW? Even being generous and equating LW4 + IBS to just half a WoW expansion and then throwing in 2 free months of subscription, that would still come out to $90 in upfront expansion purchases and another $765 in sub fees. Once again, zoom the kitten out and get some perspective please.

I am under 0 illusions that Anet doesn't have a profit motive here, they do actually need to fund the game to continue it's development after all, but I'm also aware of the fact that they've pretty much been the patron saint of customer-respecting business models in the live-service gaming space for more than a decade and that that context matters when say... people decide whether or not to start accusing them of fraud and demanding personal apologies over a poorly communicated blog post (a blog post about handing out free legendaries no less). Also, the whole "they have a profit motive!" thing works a lot better as a justification for feeling economically aggrieved when, 1. every single business on earth doesn't have to have one to simply keep existing, and 2. the company you're railing against didn't literally just spend half a decade charging less than 4% of the industry standard for it's product.

Honestly though this is pretty pointless; y'all are transparent af and pretty much beyond parody at this point. Anet can provide 4.5 years of content for $30 and it's not enough. Anet can decide to hand out a bonus 1400g legendary to anyone with at least 1 legendary rune (when they were only really required to compensate those with 6 of them already crafted) and that's not enough. There is no 'enough' for a mindset like that; you'll always find a way to convince yourself that you're owed more. The sad thing is you actually seem to believe that your pile of economic justice buzzwords is an actual justification for this kitten and not just an obvious smokescreen to obfuscate your infinite sense of entitlement. You don't give a kitten about consumer rights, you just feel that you're owed free content and you'll jump through any mental or rhetorical hoop you have to to justify it.

[Labjax.2465]

18 minutes ago, Sweetbread.3678 said:

Jesus Christ, they gave away the content for free to anyone who logged in a single time during it's release; didn't even have to be an active player, just a single 20 second log in within a 2-3 month window and it was given out for free. And then they gave it away for free AGAIN during the Return To events. A player could easily have dropped $30 on Path of Fire in September of 2017 and gotten every piece of content released up until EoD in February of 2022 for free. That's $30 for roughly 4 and a half years of content, and you're over here acting like its some shady extortionist business practice. Want some context for how absurd that is? Wanna compare that to WoW? Even being generous and equating LW4 + IBS to just half a WoW expansion and then throwing in 2 free months of subscription, that would still come out to $90 in upfront expansion purchases and another $765 in sub fees. Once again, zoom the kitten out and get some perspective please.

I am under 0 illusions that Anet doesn't have a profit motive here, they do actually need to fund the game to continue it's development after all, but I'm also aware of the fact that they've pretty much been the patron saint of customer-respecting business models in the live-service gaming space for more than a decade and that that context matters when say... people decide whether or not to start accusing them of fraud and demanding personal apologies over a poorly communicated blog post (a blog post about handing out free legendaries no less). Also, the whole "they have a profit motive!" thing works a lot better as a justification for feeling economically aggrieved when, 1. every single business on earth doesn't have to have one to simply keep existing, and 2. the company you're railing against didn't literally just spend half a decade charging less than 4% of the industry standard for it's product.

Honestly though this is pretty pointless; y'all are transparent af and pretty much beyond parody at this point. Anet can provide 4.5 years of content for $30 and it's not enough. Anet can decide to hand out a bonus 1400g legendary to anyone with at least 1 legendary rune (when they were only really required to compensate those with 6 of them already crafted) and that's not enough. There is no 'enough' for a mindset like that; you'll always find a way to convince yourself that you're owed more. The sad thing is you actually seem to believe that your pile of economic justice buzzwords is an actual justification for this kitten and not just an obvious smokescreen to obfuscate your infinite sense of entitlement. You don't give a kitten about consumer rights, you just feel that you're owed free content and you'll jump through any mental or rhetorical hoop you have to to justify it.

I'd hardly call gambling-addict-bait and compulsive-spender-bait business model anything resembling a "patron saint of customer respecting" but ok. Apparently all you gotta do is be partly freemium some of the time and you get people escalating you to sainthood, and will excuse you giving misleading information and going radio silent about it.

Wild.

I am actually somewhat at a loss for words here.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 minute ago, Labjax.2465 said:

I'd hardly call gambling-addict-bait and compulsive-spender-bait business model anything resembling a "patron saint of customer respecting" but ok. Apparently all you gotta do is be partly freemium some of the time and you get people escalating you to sainthood, and will excuse you giving misleading information and going radio silent about it.

Wild.

I am actually somewhat at a loss for words here.

Ah now we are going swinging in other directions to make a point, sure that's true.

That's the bane of a freemium model and it should not exist. This games freemium model is among the customer friendliest in the industry and most of the customers here are more than happy to  benefit off of it.

The recent complaints can be summarized as:"less freemium model, less benefits off of freemium model to the customer". That's literally where we are at atm, and look at what complaints we are getting.

[Labjax.2465]

1 minute ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Ah now we are going swinging in other directions to make a point, sure that's true.

That's the bane of a freemium model and it should not exist. This games freemium model is among the customer friendliest in the industry and most of the customers here are more than happy to  benefit off of it.

The recent complaints can be summarized as:"less freemium model, less benefits off of freemium model to the customer". That's literally where we are at atm, and look at what complaints we are getting.

To your last two sentences: I don't think it's at all that simple. This thread, for example, is primarily about accuracy of information. The relics situation in general is about many things at once, with not everyone caring about all of it simultaneously: accuracy of information; taking existing content and repackaging it to sell it as something else; loss of quirky rune effects; change in precedent of legendary design; change in cost for the customer (which relates to Soto more generally and the point you're referring to).

Then there is the broader Soto situation which contains within it complaints about quality, size of content, change in business model, change in value you're getting for cost, etc.

Were it only a smooth shift from freemium to paid, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. There would be complaints of a kind, but this thread would not exist, considering it's not even about that. There'd be people concerned because they can't afford it, but if the relative quality stacked up to the cost, there'd also be plenty of people happy with it, I'm confident of that. What I see repeatedly reflected in feedback about Soto is that it's not up to quality expectations and that makes the slight shift in model a hard pill to swallow, where otherwise people would have been more willing to accept it.

[Cyninja.2954]

12 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

To your last two sentences: I don't think it's at all that simple. This thread, for example, is primarily about accuracy of information. The relics situation in general is about many things at once, with not everyone caring about all of it simultaneously: accuracy of information; taking existing content and repackaging it to sell it as something else; loss of quirky rune effects; change in precedent of legendary design; change in cost for the customer (which relates to Soto more generally and the point you're referring to).

This thread wouldn't exist if the developers hadn't miscommunicated how legendary relics would be unlocked in the first place because TC would not have crafted 1 legendary rune to benefit off of the legendary relic unlock.

You are correct though, this thread in essence is about miscommunication (selective as it may be) and the dissatisfaction of how this is tied to the games more recent approach to monetization.

Quote

Then there is the broader Soto situation which contains within it complaints about quality, size of content, change in business model, change in value you're getting for cost, etc.

True, yet for any veteran player with sound memory, quality at least in regard to bugs has neither improved nor deteriorated. These followup patches and fixes have been a thing since forever. HoT for example had over 6 month, 6 months!, of followup patches both in regards to bug fixes as well as entire redesigns of content. The same goes for PoF, moths of reworks. Every single Living World episode in the past has had significant bugs which needed addressing and some even released unfinished (my favorite example: Kourna which was never completed and had entire features implemented which went no where lie the entire turret development).

The fact that some players choose to forget this does not make it go away.

SotO is the cheapest expansions this game has ever seen. It's strait up a trade of higher revenue via microtransactions and box price for guaranteed/mandatory box price. That's before factoring for inflation (which makes past expansion far more expensive in today dollars).

Quote

Were it only a smooth shift from freemium to paid, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. There would be complaints of a kind, but this thread would not exist, considering it's not even about that. There'd be people concerned because they can't afford it, but if the relative quality stacked up to the cost, there'd also be plenty of people happy with it, I'm confident of that. What I see repeatedly reflected in feedback about Soto is that it's not up to quality expectations and that makes the slight shift in model a hard pill to swallow, where otherwise people would have been more willing to accept it.

This thread would exist, just like the other thread exists complaining about having to play story to get features unlocked, just like threads about Skyscales existed, just like threads about templates, masteries, difficulty, raids, etc. exist.

Some of those threads are born out of a sense of entitlement, others touch on reasonable subjects. Rest assured: there would have been threads about cost by mere fact that this player base is VERY price sensitive (and some of the players here would be better off to actually take a break and touch grass instead of lingering for months and months).

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[Minna.7895]

9 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

 And all that just to regain a functionality that was removed from runes before.

If only that was the case we would not even be talking about it I believe (atleast not to this extend) , cause ya know then they would be a real legendary, work like every other and this thread would be unnecessary.

[Labjax.2465]

16 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

This thread wouldn't exist if the developers hadn't miscommunicated how legendary relics would be unlocked in the first place because TC would not have crafted 1 legendary rune to benefit off of the legendary relic unlock.

You are correct though, this thread in essence is about miscommunication (selective as it may be) and the dissatisfaction of how this is tied to the games more recent approach to monetization.

True, yet for any veteran player with sound memory, quality at least in regard to bugs has neither improved nor deteriorated. These followup patches and fixes have been a thing since forever. HoT for example had over 6 month, 6 months!, of followup patches both in regards to bug fixes as well as entire redesigns of content. The same goes for PoF, moths of reworks. Every single Living World episode in the past has had significant bugs which needed addressing and some even released unfinished (my favorite example: Kourna which was never completed and had entire features implemented which went no where lie the entire turret development).

The fact that some players choose to forget this does not make it go away.

SotO is the cheapest expansions this game has ever seen. It's strait up a trade of higher revenue via microtransactions and box price for guaranteed/mandatory box price. That's before factoring for inflation (which makes past expansion far more expensive in today dollars).

This thread would exist, just like the other thread exists complaining about having to play story to get features unlocked, just like threads about Skyscales existed, just like threads about templates, masteries, difficulty, raids, etc. exist.

Some of those threads are born out of a sense of entitlement, others touch on reasonable subjects. Rest assured: there would have been threads about cost by mere fact that this player base is VERY price sensitive (and some of the players here would be better off to actually take a break and touch grass instead of lingering for months and months).

I wasn't even thinking of bugs. I was thinking more of stuff like this:

Nothing quite says "quality is down" like a person playing for almost 20 years across two different iterations of the series losing hope in the game. Not saying it's more than their opinion (something they themself note), but I am saying it's hard to get around the reality of what people are saying about it. We could (probably pointlessly) debate whether Soto is technically down in quality compared to past content with some kind of metrics, but that isn't deciding whether people are enjoying the game and are hopeful about its future. Whether people are enjoying the game and are hopeful about its future is deciding that in its own right. Or to put it another way, you can debate what cake is using higher quality ingredients, but you can't debate what people's taste buds say about it. They either like it or they don't.

[Cyninja.2954]

13 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

I wasn't even thinking of bugs. I was thinking more of stuff like this:

Nothing quite says "quality is down" like a person playing for almost 20 years across two different iterations of the series losing hope in the game. Not saying it's more than their opinion (something they themself note), but I am saying it's hard to get around the reality of what people are saying about it. We could (probably pointlessly) debate whether Soto is technically down in quality compared to past content with some kind of metrics, but that isn't deciding whether people are enjoying the game and are hopeful about its future. Whether people are enjoying the game and are hopeful about its future is deciding that in its own right. Or to put it another way, you can debate what cake is using higher quality ingredients, but you can't debate what people's taste buds say about it. They either like it or they don't.

We've had doom and gloom threads and complaints as far back as season 1. If this was a larger issue, then the forums would be on fire. They are not.

You want doom and gloom? Try a 17+ page long thread (within 1-2 days) about how veteran players are disadvantaged versus new players (happened with HoT and the studio shifted and changed the unlocks with expansions).

There are a lot of changes with SotO and some of them are not yet proven. For example:

- even more of a shift on legendary items which was started with EoD. The expansion offers almost nothing for players which are not interested in legendary gear

- shift in story. Before there was an overarching "saga" to follow and individual quality was criticized but less important given it was part of a whole

- loss of familiar characters in the story. I believe this is a big one which was underestimated

- power creep beyond good and evil which now lets a lot of players partake in how boring open world content can be

and other issues as well. Now not all of that is quality but rather direction, some which was asked for by players. Easier access to legendary gear is both a boon and a detriment, making the game revolve around this type of gear.

Also that thread was factually incorrect. He attributes some things which were factually not present. For example: the build crafting before 2020 was non existent for a few years, given there was no balance changes for nearly 2 years. The complaint about weapons not being present on launch seems superficial as well, given that this type of massive build reshuffle was never present on such a short notice in the past (the time between expansions and new elite specs and thus new weapons was far longer than between EoD and SotO weapons).

Reads a lot more like a veteran who has just burnt out to me, though he is obviously entitled to his opinion.

The new mini expansion model has the benefits but also the detriments of both expansions and living world: most notably that the entire content will be available once the expansion has completely released (similar to living world) while front-loading a significant part of the content (similar to expansions).

We are getting off topic though here, again, for many veteran players it might be in their best interest to approach the new mini expansions similar to open world content: wait until it has fully released, then come back and play it, then take a break again. That was the mo of many in the past and it works to this day.

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[Labjax.2465]

2 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

We've had doom and gloom threads and complaints as far back as season 1. If this was a larger issue, then the forums would be on fire. They are not.

If only it worked like that. There's more than one way that kind of thing goes. There's "it's not a complete dumpster fire" because it isn't that big of a deal. Then there's "it's not a complete dumpster fire because people can't be bothered to care one way or another and/or too many of them are just not present to say anything anymore."

Quantity alone doesn't mean much. You have to look at the ratio and the tone of the complaints.

The class balance fiasco in recent years was "hot", as far as I could tell. People were willing and ready to fight for better. The Soto situation? Seems much more "cold" to me. People are bringing out the politely worded complaint letter energy, the "I guess I'll give it a try to see if better can be had." Or to use that one person's wording, "the passion is gone."

Of course that doesn't describe everybody or the game would be shutting down. But I'm trying to convey what I'm seeing and I don't see any dismissing it as average complaining. When people care, they fight. When people give up, they leave. When people leave, they often don't come back.

You and I can ignore that if we want and go back and forth until we run out of energy and pass out from exhaustion. Anet ignores it and loses money.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 minute ago, Labjax.2465 said:

If only it worked like that. There's more than one way that kind of thing goes. There's "it's not a complete dumpster fire" because it isn't that big of a deal. Then there's "it's not a complete dumpster fire because people can't be bothered to care one way or another and/or too many of them are just not present to say anything anymore."

Quantity alone doesn't mean much. You have to look at the ratio and the tone of the complaints.

The class balance fiasco in recent years was "hot", as far as I could tell. People were willing and ready to fight for better. The Soto situation? Seems much more "cold" to me. People are bringing out the politely worded complaint letter energy, the "I guess I'll give it a try to see if better can be had." Or to use that one person's wording, "the passion is gone."

Of course that doesn't describe everybody or the game would be shutting down. But I'm trying to convey what I'm seeing and I don't see any dismissing it as average complaining. When people care, they fight. When people give up, they leave. When people leave, they often don't come back.

You and I can ignore that if we want and go back and forth until we run out of energy and pass out from exhaustion. Anet ignores it and loses money.

I'm going to stop you right there and just mention: players unhappy with the game will find other who are unhappy with the game.

I've had friends return after 1.5-2 years of a break, and they are no lifeing the game and having as much fun as one might imagine. I have friends who are currently burnt out and see no reason to currently play which were very active the last few years.

You are currently if I am not mistaken not active in the game, yet feel the need to chime in on what sorry state the game is in. Free speech and all, but maybe you ought to let the game be a game, worry less about it and actually take a break instead of looking for threads which support your conclusion, which is not even based on actual in game experience, no?

[Labjax.2465]

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm going to stop you right there and just mention: players unhappy with the game will find other who are unhappy with the game.

I've had friends return after 1.5-2 years of a break, and they are no lifeing the game and having as much fun as one might imagine. I have friends who are currently burnt out and see no reason to currently play which were very active the last few years.

You are currently if I am not mistaken not active in the game, yet feel the need to chime in on what sorry state the game is in. Free speech and all, but maybe you ought to let the game be a game, worry less about it and actually take a break instead of looking for threads which support your conclusion, which is not even based on actual in game experience, no?

It's interesting how the goalposts move as the discussion goes on. First, I mentioned issues with Soto and you focused on bugs and said every patch has bugs. Then I clarified I was thinking more of negative reviews of the content and cited a thread from a long time veteran who was losing hope in the game - and you claimed they were wrong about a bunch of things and were just burned out, as well as saying that negative feedback has always been a thing. Then I mention my observations about the tone of complaints. Now you turn your focus on criticizing me as a person and what I'm doing with my time, while saying some people are having fun with the game still, as if that negates the negative reviews I've been talking about.

I wonder why you are going to this much effort to deny any problems out of the ordinary. What is the worst that happens if we were to agree the situation is abnormally bad? That Anet listens somewhat harder for a time, but didn't need to? Versus, if the situation is abnormally bad, but they don't listen, the worst case scenario being the loss of the game you seem to love.

[Cyninja.2954]

7 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

It's interesting how the goalposts move as the discussion goes on. First, I mentioned issues with Soto and you focused on bugs and said every patch has bugs. Then I clarified I was thinking more of negative reviews of the content and cited a thread from a long time veteran who was losing hope in the game - and you claimed they were wrong about a bunch of things and were just burned out, as well as saying that negative feedback has always been a thing. Then I mention my observations about the tone of complaints. Now you turn your focus on criticizing me as a person and what I'm doing with my time, while saying some people are having fun with the game still, as if that negates the negative reviews I've been talking about.

Not as much goal posts as answering or refering to what you said was important to you. My previous points still stand, it just made sense to address what you said and meant, unless you wanted me to not actually address your points. I am unsure how that is moving the goal post, unless you were trying to bait so you can make this claim.

FYI: I've always mentioned that we have had these same complaints in the past, because we have. You are not the first or only currently burnt out negative point farmer on these forums, and even that is not a new feature or behavior.

Quote

I wonder why you are going to this much effort to deny any problems out of the ordinary. What is the worst that happens if we were to agree the situation is abnormally bad? That Anet listens somewhat harder for a time, but didn't need to? Versus, if the situation is abnormally bad, but they don't listen, the worst case scenario being the loss of the game you seem to love.

O no, I think there are a lot of issues. I just don't think these are the ones or the ones addressed in this thread (being mostly about miscommunication).

I also don't think that inactive players which draw their opinions from negative threads are the ones in the best place to judge the game. It's almost as though having an opinion justifying them leaving the game is more desirable than the opposite.

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[Labjax.2465]

Just now, Cyninja.2954 said:

Not as much goal posts as answering or refering to what you said was important to you. My previous points still stand, it just made sense to address what you said and meant, unless you wanted me to not actually address your points. I am unsure how that is moving the goal post, unless you were trying to bait so you can make this claim.

It's moving the goalposts in the sense that no matter what I cite as a reason for concern, you effectively say "no, not that, it must be more meaningful than that." Then it reached the point of going right past the particulars and saying the problem is me.

I would truly like to know what you think is the worst that happens if you were to agree with me that the situation is abnormally bad.

[vares.8457]

13 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

the situation is abnormally bad.

It is not. This is just nonsense, no matter how often you repeat it. 

[Labjax.2465]

7 minutes ago, vares.8457 said:

It is not. This is just nonsense, no matter how often you repeat it. 

Maybe we have a different understanding of the phrase. I can tell you that in my head, "abnormally bad" does not mean "the heat death of the universe is fast approaching." However, it may depending on the circumstances, mean, "The studio should probably be taking it seriously. And forum posters trying to dismiss it out of hand repeatedly isn't going to improve the situation; in fact, it may make it worse by causing people who already feel put off with the game to feel unwelcome in the community and feel reframed as disloyal enemies and instigators, as well as pressure them into doubling down on why they have a problem, which could make it all the harder for them to ever see a way back to their previous enjoyment of the game."

[Cyninja.2954]

38 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

It's moving the goalposts in the sense that no matter what I cite as a reason for concern, you effectively say "no, not that, it must be more meaningful than that." Then it reached the point of going right past the particulars and saying the problem is me.

I would truly like to know what you think is the worst that happens if you were to agree with me that the situation is abnormally bad.

How can I agree when I do not agree to the points you make?

Also if you had read one of my earlier replies carefully you would have picked up on some of the reasons I stated for what I believe some players take issue with and what I concider issues (in the context of this topic and exchange, there are certainly more).

I don't think the situation is abnormally bad, I don't even think the situation is the worst this game has ever been in. In fact the opposite: I think these are growing pains at best of an in my opinion better system.

Once the revenue reports take a dive, I personally see no improvement or even deterioration with the next expansion, then I'll change my opinion.

Reading through negative threads to give me an opinion is not my approach.

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[yann.1946]

Personally, I prefer the system were you have to buy the expacs to unlock the stats/relics of that expac. Specifically, so legendary gear isn't bis statwise. (A condiplayer who doesn't have hot needs to make leg gear to get access to viper for example).

However, I think they should fix this oversight/ bug to make the relic more consistent with older legendaries

Edited March 17 by yann.1946
Typo

[Luthan.5236]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:53 PM, Zyreva.1078 said:

Playing content isn't a requirement for unlocking SotO relics tho ...

They probably did want to restrict it to later content to not annoy people that already made the runes/relics (rune to get the free relic). Since the major thing about legendary stuff is the "free to swap" (without having to re-craft expensive stuff that gets bound) I think it should not be a big deal. At the release people can get most of the stuff currently existing. No bigger changes to previous stuff. (Except the big changes to runes when the 6th rune effect got moved to relics.)

For future content it is nice to have people playing it actually. (And they want to sell the expansions.) Also won't be a big deal since most content is unlocked pretty fast and people are doing it anways for the mastery level and for the achievement points.

Main "problem" probably is when people only try to play "hardcore" stuff (raids, strikes) without ignoring all other content. When the new expansion makes newer builds including the new relic effects "meta" and you are "required" to have that relic effects unlocked. (But that is a problem of elitists and the playerbase ... and wanting to optimize everything. Without the newer stuff everything should still be possible to play - at least for the strikes/raids that got released before the 5th expansion.)

I like the unlocking. I am in favor if it. And I would even want it for future stats combinations for legendary armor/weapons and other stuff. It is fun to unlock stuff and the game is about achievements (and clothing) mostly anways. 😄 Makes it feel more fun. Otherwise you'd just buy the expansion and be like "oh I have legendary already and don't need to play anything to get the stuff unlocked - I need more conent and another expansion since I am finished with this one already". 😄 

[yann.1946]

42 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

 And forum posters trying to dismiss it out of hand repeatedly isn't going to improve the situation; in fact, it may make it worse by causing people who already feel put off with the game to feel unwelcome in the community and feel reframed as disloyal enemies and instigators, as well as pressure them into doubling down on why they have a problem, which could make it all the harder for them to ever see a way back to their previous enjoyment of the game."

This makes no sense to me personally, should people just pretend to agree to complains when they think the thing that is complained about is a positive? 

Additionally, a decent amount of time people give reasons for their disagreements. But I don't think that matters that much for the people who feel alienated.

[Zyreva.1078]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

- provide compensation instead of free relic based on the amount of runes owned

And it's probably what they should have sticked with (alongside with making the legendary relic SotO exclusive) and i don't think anyone would have had a big problem with that, as long they don't suddenly provide conflicting information.

But they didn't go that route and some people were upset about that.

If they would now change their stance once more and start to remove stuff from players, again in contrast to what was said - people are going to be upset again and rightfully so. Idk why you'd imply that people shouldn't be displeased about that sort of stuff. If it doesn't affect you personally - maybe just be happy and move on, instead of trying to deny valid criticism.

[Cyninja.2954]

9 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

And it's probably what they should have sticked with (alongside with making the legendary relic SotO exclusive) and i don't think anyone would have had a big problem with that, as long they don't suddenly provide conflicting information.

But they didn't go that route and some people were upset about that.

If they would now change their stance once more and start to remove stuff from players, again in contrast to what was said - people are going to be upset again and rightfully so. Idk why you'd imply that people shouldn't be displeased about that sort of stuff. If it doesn't affect you personally - maybe just be happy and move on, instead of trying to deny valid criticism.

I'm not denying criticism: I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of some players which are more than fine when miscommunication works in their favor, but are up in arms when it is not.

For all I care, players are free to criticize as much as they want. The only issue I see here is that most players expect results based on their criticism, which might lead to results they might not want to begin with. I merely pointed out what those might be in this case (not that I believe the developers would take that approach).

EDIT: and FYI, I too think they should have stuck with their initial approach, not because it affected me (I was at 7 runes myself) but because it would have been fair to all those players which crafted 6-7 runes due to the initial announcement (but who cares about them right, dumb schmucks just got unlucky).

Then again I am also fine with them handing the relic out for just owning 1 rune, even if that's "unfair" to all the current players which did not make use of that feature (or the ones sinking in 3k+ gold on runes).

What I disagree with is this up and arms about one miscommunication when the initial deviation from what was planned is to blame for the second miscommunication to begin with.

Edited March 17 by Cyninja.2954

[Cheese.6352]

7 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Okay, let's actually talk clarification and correction:

- remove legendary relics from any player who doesn't own at least 6 legendary runes

- provide compensation instead of free relic based on the amount of runes owned 

that's what the original announcement stated and what made alot of players craft multiple runes.

Now also provide SotO relic access for everyone who still owns a legendary relic.

I wonder how many players will now come and complain that they lost access to the legendary relic given they only crafted 1 rune? 

This, to me, would have been fine.  As I stated, I asked support to remove the rune and relic from my account and refund it, but unfortunately they can't.  As it stands right now, the relic and rune do essentially nothing for me.  I use that account to play with friends on another server.  I get my weekly CM clears and move back to my main account.  I have enough base relics that my characters have functional builds, so being able to swap those freely has absolutely zero value for me.  I wanted the relic for the specific reason of unlocking more and better optimized build options for the account (options I had under the previous rune system).

I know it's a difficult thing to understand that not everyone interacts with the game the same way, but what I am asking for has no down side to anyone who is happy with the relic roll out and only benefits people who felt they were mislead by ANet's announcement.

[Zyreva.1078]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

What I disagree with is this up and arms about one miscommunication when the initial deviation from what was planned is to blame for the second miscommunication to begin with.

I don't see how changing plans gives people any less reason to complain about being denied important information.

Like yes, anet shouldn't have said that crafting more runes would provide more "progress" towards the legendary relic when they apparently didn't actually know what they were going to do exactly and i can understand why people were upset, when they announced something different. But that's no justification for leaving out critical information and  refusing to provide any clarification when asked. Some players got screwed over by their change of plan, but that doesn't make it ok to screw over even more.

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

I don't see how changing plans gives people any less reason to complain about being denied important information.

Like yes, anet shouldn't have said that crafting more runes would provide more "progress" towards the legendary relic when they apparently didn't actually know what they were going to do exactly and i can understand why people were upset, when they announced something different. But that's no justification for leaving out critical information and  refusing to provide any clarification when asked. Some players got screwed over by their change of plan, but that doesn't make it ok to screw over even more.

I'll fight pretty hard on this on this. But nobody was screwed over by the change. They where better or equal of after the change then before it. 

Some people would have been better of if the change was communicated earlier, but nobody would be better with the pre change wording then the post change wording in relation to the acquisition.

Edited March 17 by yann.1946