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

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

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.

Seriously, you've had example of someone that did get kittened over by the last change in this very thread.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

14 hours 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.

"Log in, get episode for free" is on the other end of the chart from "gambling-addict-bait and compulsive-spender-bait business model". 
Not charging a shitton of money is a pretty good way to be considered customer friendly, giving out free rewards is also a good way to be considered customer friendly.

13 hours 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.

Yep, it's always the current expansion that is going to be the last, because Anet is not caring anymore and the game will die and the previous expansions were always perfect, repeat with every release. I've had friends whine that GW2 is going to die in a year back in 2012. 

[Labjax.2465]

12 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

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.

I don't think I need to draw up any hypotheticals to get the point across. This thread itself has examples of posters downplaying people's own cited personal experience issues. You yourself in this thread say "nobody was screwed over by the change" when there is somebody 2 posts above you who just described a way in which they were. There is a difference between arguing over a larger narrative about the game's direction and telling someone their complaint about the game is invalid or being dismissive of it, and some people can go so hard into the 2nd one, there's a reason I posed a question like, "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."

Not as some gotcha, but because I genuinely don't understand what some people think is going to happen that will be so bad if they aren't pushing back so hard against negative feedback. I have seen in the past with open world legendary armor where in spite of some people being viciously against those who asked for it, it got implemented. So I don't really understand what people think they are accomplishing when they try to undermine, or be dismissive toward, someone who is trying to communicate their desires about the game and their state of mind about it. I want people to think about what they are doing and for what purpose, and that's what that question was about.

In my experience (and this applies to fandoms generally, far too often) it is almost never the case that someone who adores a product gets flak for doing so, but if someone has problems with it, even if they are a current and long-time fan who is actively using the product and enjoying it, then: if their feedback is emotional, they will be told to calm down or to leave; if it's detached, they will be accused of being someone who is only pretending to care and is trying to instigate; if it's personal, they will be told their experience doesn't matter much or is inconsequential; if they try to make it empirical, they will be told their facts are incorrect or are unimportant. How this is supposed to benefit players, I'm not sure. We are far more on the same side even at our most annoyed with each other than we will ever be on the same side with the company whose products we buy. Their agenda and goals are not ours and satisfaction occurs when our goals intersect with theirs in ways that result in mutual benefit, not because of any point where our goals are identical with theirs. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is really really really important for people to understand because if you think you are on the same side as the company, you will get burned in the moments when it becomes impossible to ignore that their agenda and goals are fundamentally different from your own. And it's not supposed to be a reason to be randomly mean or hostile toward a given company (I actually go out of my way to humanize the employees themselves when I talk about these things), this aspect of it is just about understanding power and agendas.

Please, I am begging people to reflect on this. If you want to ignore everything else that I say or want to dismiss every single thing I've ever said about this particular game, ok, drop in the bucket, doesn't matter, but please listen and reflect on this one point, not for my sake or your sake, but for our sake.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Seriously, you've had example of someone that did get kittened over by the last change in this very thread.

and he benefitted greatly by the previous change which allows him to have a legendary relic with minimal gold investment. So this becomes a question of how selective one looks at the announcements about the legendary relic.

Also the claim that the legendary relic is useless even with only core relics is easily debunked. Half the current meta relics used are core, the other half SotO while core relics can be used as replacements.

Sorry, only because someone has buyers remorse because the good deal he got is not good enough in his opinion is the exact issue here.

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

and he benefitted greatly by the previous change which allows him to have a legendary relic with minimal gold investment. So this becomes a question of how selective one looks at the announcements about the legendary relic.

Also the claim that the legendary relic is useless even with only core relics is easily debunked. Half the current meta relics used are core, the other half SotO while core relics can be used as replacements.

Sorry, only because someone has buyers remorse because the good deal he got is not good enough in his opinion is the exact issue here.

Is the legendary relic really needed if one have 51 relic chests with about 5 characters one play tho?

So cant say I really benefited at all, I could have sold those materials instead.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 minute ago, Linken.6345 said:

Is the legendary relic really needed if one have 51 relic chests with about 5 characters one play tho?

So cant say I really benefited at all, I could have sold those materials instead.

That's every indivudals personal decision. I had over 130 chests and still was glad to get the relic.

I guess it depends a lot on how much build craft a player does and the quality of life that simply selecting a relic at will brings.

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

and he benefitted greatly by the previous change which allows him to have a legendary relic with minimal gold investment.

Is ~900 gold a "minimal gold investment" now? Not to mention that anyone that waits for 2-3 months is likely to be able to craft the relic directly at a lower cost than that?

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So this becomes a question of how selective one looks at the announcements about the legendary relic..

No, it shows that the situation wasn't clearcut of only gain no loses - some benefitted, but some did lose.

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Also the claim that the legendary relic is useless even with only core relics is easily debunked.

It may look useless to someone that already has all the core relics they need (due to the 3 chests per character they obtained). Like the person we're talking about, that did mention he crafted the rune (to obtain the relic) for one specific purpose, and one purpose only - to gain the access to SotO relic on non-SotO account.

Honestly, it's clear that from announcements they could have expected to get what they wanted, and yet they got kittened over due to Anet refusing to clarify that one issue even though many people did ask (and no, please, do not tell me they did not notice the questions, we both know it's not true). As such, a statement that, i quote " But nobody was screwed over by the change." is clearly untrue. Some people did get kittened over. We may argue about how many, or how badly, but we can't argue about the fact that people like that do exist. Unless we argue in bad faith, that is.

[Cyninja.2954]

22 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Is ~900 gold a "minimal gold investment" now? Not to mention that anyone that waits for 2-3 months is likely to be able to craft the relic directly at a lower cost than that?

First off, it was 600 gold before the announcement was made that you only need 1 rune. Then it jumped to 900 gold. Currently runes sit at 650 gold and a relic at 1,320 gold. That's a total of nearly 2,000 gold in legendary gear.

While I am sure that legendary relics and runes will drop price wise. For the relic to drop sub 900 gold and even more to drop significantly below 900 gold will take a LONG time, if ever.

As to 900 gold, that's pretty cheap as far as legendary gear goes, so I don't see your point. 900 gold for getting 2k gold worth of legendary gear unlocked seems a good deal.

Quote

No, it shows that the situation wasn't clearcut of only gain no loses - some benefitted, but some did lose.

That is not true. No one "lost". Some players didn't get what they wanted or expected, but even they did not lose. In fact they are merely unhappy with the gain the got.
 

Quote

 

It may look useless to someone that already has all the core relics they need (due to the 3 chests per character they obtained). Like the person we're talking about, that did mention he crafted the rune (to obtain the relic) for one specific purpose, and one purpose only - to gain the access to SotO relic on non-SotO account.

Honestly, it's clear that from announcements they could have expected to get what they wanted, and yet they got kittened over due to Anet refusing to clarify that one issue even though many people did ask (and no, please, do not tell me they did not notice the questions, we both know it's not true). As such, a statement that, i quote " But nobody was screwed over by the change." is clearly untrue. Some people did get kittened over. We may argue about how many, or how badly, but we can't argue about the fact that people like that do exist. Unless we argue in bad faith, that is.

 

They didn't get what they expected, true. No one is denying that. They didn't get "screwed" over though, at least not in any way that "screwed" over would be reasonable to take serious. Which is what this thread has been running on. Some sense of big screw over when in fact at most it's just a significant different benefit.

Any player who made a full set of runes was screwed over more value wise btw, just as reference.

Edited March 18 by Cyninja.2954

[XenesisII.1540]

Just another bait and switch.

 

Quote

 

So, for relics only—and starting with the fifth expansion—new relic effects will need to be unlocked within each expansion in order to be accessible via legendary relics.

Legendary relics will come with all Guild Wars 2: Secrets of the Obscure relic effects unlocked, will still be freely swappable between existing relic effects, and will still be able to be equipped simultaneously on multiple characters. 

 

 

There is no reason for excuses here, and anyone defending this screw up is why companies continue to try and nickle and dime everything to rip customers off.

[Astralporing.1957]

...sigh

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Any player who made a full set of runes was screwed over more value wise btw, just as reference.

So, basically, after all of the above, you do agree that saying that "nobody was screwed over by the change" is untrue. Thank you, that's all i wanted to say. I don't get why you kept countering me even though you did agree on that key part.

The whole misinformation tango, coupled with intentional (because at this point there's nothing that might persuade me they just didn't notice the relevant questions - they did, they just decided not to anwer) withholding of clarifications was really bad.

And all that happened just because they could not admit they truly have forgotten about legendary runes when introducing the relics, and so, when making first posts about legendary relic they still had no idea how to implement it.

Edited March 18 by Astralporing.1957

[Cyninja.2954]

22 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

...sigh

So, basically, after all of the above, you do agree that saying that "nobody was screwed over by the change" is untrue. Thank you, that's all i wanted to say. I don't get why you kept countering me even though you did agree on that key part.

The whole misinformation tango, coupled with intentional (because at this point there's nothing that might persuade me they just didn't notice the relevant questions - they did, they just decided not to anwer) withholding of clarifications was really bad.

And all that happened just because they could not admit they truly have forgotten about legendary runes when introducing the relics, and so, when making first posts about legendary relic they still had no idea how to implement it.

First off, I don't see those huge advocates for righting the wrong done to players who crafted multiple runes. Doing so would likely enrage and de-benefit a lot of players and while it does go with what TC would be happy with (stated in his last response), I doubt this is in the games best interest at this point in time.

Notice how in this case giving TC what he wants would be a far worse deal for the majority of players here. How is THAT reasonable? Thus we circle back to why I am calling this entire thread phony outrage.

I gave context on how "screwed" players really were and gave a comparison which puts another group of player as way more disadvantaged than TC. I think I was pretty clear on the fact that I don't see any player in TCs position as objectively being screwed over though. You are correct though that players who did craft legendary runes at 900 gold a piece are at a net loss of around 400 gold currently, likely to increase by a few hundred gold when runes and relics become cheaper. Again, I don't see the big outcry in support here.

The last point of your is just once again making assumptions. Sure that might be the case, but given the nature of player outrage and how those things work in the online space one could also just state this as: their short term crisis management did not line up with their later implementation. Which still made this far more beneficial to a majority of players overall, given the amount of players crafting 1 legendary rune was more than players which crafted a full set.

Edited March 18 by Cyninja.2954

[Astralporing.1957]

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

First off, I don't see those huge advocates for righting the wrong done to players who crafted multiple runes. Doing so would likely enrage and de-benefit a lot of players and while it does go with what TC would be happy with (stated in his last response), I doubt this is in the games best interest at this point in time.

Agreed, there's no reverting that one at this point. Although i am not sure if going by original info would have made 6 rune owners all that much happier - anyone that crafted 6-7 runes after the initial announcement overpaid much more than the relic is worth. I mean, it was pretty clear to me from the beginning that it would have been the case, but i kind of remember that a lot of people didn't seem to understand that then.

And as for right advocates, it's quite normal to be more active when the situation seems to be detrimental, instead of beneficial to you.

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Notice how in this case giving TC what he wants would be a far worse deal for the majority of players here. How is THAT reasonable? Thus we circle back to why I am calling this entire thread phony outrage.

That's exactly what i do not notice. I don't see how saying "oops, right, our mistake" and allowing SotO relic choice even without SotO bought (and going with their original, announced idea of having to unlock relics only from the next expansion upward) would have been detrimental to any player. While the outrage for going back to their first announcement would have been big, i don't see how keeping to the second would have resulted in any.

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I gave context on how "screwed" players really were and gave a comparison which puts another group of player as way more disadvantaged than TC. I think I was pretty clear on the fact that I don't see any player in TCs position as objectively being screwed over though. You are correct though that players who did craft legendary runes at 900 gold a piece are at a net loss of around 400 gold currently, likely to increase by a few hundred gold when runes and relics become cheaper. Again, I don't see the big outcry in support here.

That's because the whole outcry happened earlier, when the initial announcement was released. I for one was clearly saying from the very beginning how i think the whole compensation, if it will be an one-time matter (instead of, say, being a permanent achievement where you get a relic for collecting 6 runes) is inevitably going to get some people kittened over, and unsatisfied.

Btw, when counting how much someone has overpaid, count those that did all 7 runes as well. That's not "just" 400 gold loss, that's over 2k.

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The last point of your is just once again making assumptions. Sure that might be the case, but given the nature of player outrage and how those things work in the online space one could also just state this as: their short term crisis management did not line up with their later implementation. 

Sure, i am making assumptions. Seeing as their first response to us asking  "what about legendary rune owners" was "oops, we''ll get back to you later" however, i am quite sure those assumptions are pretty much spot-on. They've just forgotten about legendary runes. And it's extremely clear they initially had no plan about legendary relic either.

Notice, btw, how they avoided answering key questions (like about whether the legendary relic will cover SotO runes for non-soto owners) even at the time when it's clear they already knew the answers to it.

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Which still made this far more beneficial to a majority of players overall, given the amount of players crafting 1 legendary rune was more than players which crafted a full set.

I see a far different meaning in that last implementation than you do. Sure, it was a crisis management, but not about the past issues, but the future one. Basically, they let people obtain relic easier, with only one rune, because they intended to nerf what legendary meant from that point on. If they kept to original intention (7 runes being only partial compensation, not even a full one) and then required further unlocks on that legendary relic in the future, you can bet the forums would have exploded far, far worse than they did now.

Again, all that could have been avoided had Anet:

1. planned the legendary issue from the beginning,

or

2. barring this had been honest about having to think first about how they will address it, and only then announcing that plan and following up on it,

and, first and foremost

3. not tried to get too greedy by seeing it as an occasion to shift the status quo on legendary gear (for the detriment of legendary owners).

It's not just about "short term crisis management" not lining up with implementation. It's about Anet messing up pretty much on all points related to the whole relic release.

[Cyninja.2954]

23 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Agreed, there's no reverting that one at this point. Although i am not sure if going by original info would have made 6 rune owners all that much happier - anyone that crafted 6-7 runes after the initial announcement overpaid much more than the relic is worth. I mean, it was pretty clear to me from the beginning that it would have been the case, but i kind of remember that a lot of people didn't seem to understand that then.

And as for right advocates, it's quite normal to be more active when the situation seems to be detrimental, instead of beneficial to you.

That's exactly what i do not notice. I don't see how saying "oops, right, our mistake" and allowing SotO relic choice even without SotO bought (and going with their original, announced idea of having to unlock relics only from the next expansion upward) would have been detrimental to any player. While the outrage for going back to their first announcement would have been big, i don't see how keeping to the second would have resulted in any.

Ah selective outrage over which miscommunication is the "bad" one. I mentioned this earlier. You must have missed where TC mentioned that he'd be happy if Arenanet reverted the entire issue, aka give progress based on runes owned.

So you are happy with them miscommunicating that multiple runes are needed, happy with them correctly communicating that only 1 rune will be needed, and unhappy with SotO runes not being part of the deal (aka miscommunicating). Sure, I can see that. I can also see how maybe the amount of players crafting 1 rune might have shifted their initial decision to include SotO runes.

We agree though that unlike what TC would be happy with, the current implementation is beneficial to most players and should not be reverted.

Quote

Btw, when counting how much someone has overpaid, count those that did all 7 runes as well. That's not "just" 400 gold loss, that's over 2k.

It's 700 gold loss in value (at 900 gold per rune), not over 2k (Previous Rune cost - Current Rune cost in relationship to current Relic cost. Or current totaal price of 7 runes+relic versus previous cost of 7 runes). But yes, I gave the math for 6 runes (actually estimated, I just punched in the total cost in efficiency and 7 runes+relic come out as 5,910 gold versus 6,300 previously for 7 runes at 900 gold and a free relic)and this will likely grow. Your 2k estimate is far off.
 

Quote

 

Sure, i am making assumptions. Seeing as their first response to us asking  "what about legendary rune owners" was "oops, we''ll get back to you later" however, i am quite sure those assumptions are pretty much spot-on. They've just forgotten about legendary runes. And it's extremely clear they initially had no plan about legendary relic either.

Notice, btw, how they avoided answering key questions (like about whether the legendary relic will cover SotO runes for non-soto owners) even at the time when it's clear they already knew the answers to it.

 

Oh I agree on this, I'm sure they were not considering adding a legendary rune. I'm actually going as far back as EoD and their implementation of the Jadebot. It's pretty clear that the developers feel the need to implement "something" which extends beyond legendary gear, likely seeing the detriments which legendary gear brings to the game at this point.

Quote

I see a far different meaning in that last implementation than you do. Sure, it was a crisis management, but not about the past issues, but the future one. Basically, they let people obtain relic easier, with only one rune, because they intended to nerf what legendary meant from that point on. If they kept to original intention (7 runes being only partial compensation, not even a full one) and then required further unlocks on that legendary relic in the future, you can bet the forums would have exploded far, far worse than they did now.

Disagreed. I'm pretty sure the forums would have reacted pretty much the same as they did now, minus the players which crafted 1 legendary rune to get the relic.

Quote

 

Again, all that could have been avoided had Anet:

1. planned the legendary issue from the beginning,

or

2. barring this had been honest about having to think first about how they will address it, and only then announcing that plan and following up on it,

and, first and foremost

3. not tried to get too greedy by seeing it as an occasion to shift the status quo on legendary gear (for the detriment of legendary owners).

It's not just about "short term crisis management" not lining up with implementation. It's about Anet messing up pretty much on all points related to the whole relic release.

 

Agreed, but as I've stated: I see this as reacting to a problem on the rise and an issue with legendary gear which was not considered in the past. The best they could do is be up and honest about it at this point.

Tell the player base that account wide unlocked legendary gear which gives access to content which is not purchased is causing an issue and as such changes are being made.
 

Edited March 18 by Cyninja.2954

[Cheese.6352]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I gave context on how "screwed" players really were and gave a comparison which puts another group of player as way more disadvantaged than TC. I think I was pretty clear on the fact that I don't see any player in TCs position as objectively being screwed over though. You are correct though that players who did craft legendary runes at 900 gold a piece are at a net loss of around 400 gold currently, likely to increase by a few hundred gold when runes and relics become cheaper. Again, I don't see the big outcry in support here.

If you look at my original post (quoted below), I did actually craft a 7th rune that I will never use (because I dislike underwater content) based on the original announcement.

On 3/11/2024 at 11:37 PM, Cheese.6352 said:

Between this and crafting a 7th rune at the advice of the first announcement regarding legendary relics in July 2023, I am out around 1000g for items that are of almost no use to me

I am just of the opinion that was a net good change for the playerbase and even though it was detrimental to me, it's a pill I can swallow because lots of people benefited from it.  I was a bit annoyed at the time, but at this point, there's no way they will be changing it, so I've moved on.  As for being able to swap the core relics, I already had all of the relics for the builds I will be playing on the account.  Even disregarding the chest, they would've cost me maybe 100g in total for the ones I use.  As the relic is currently implemented, it has almost zero benefit to me on that account.

28 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

We agree though that unlike what TC would be happy with, the current implementation is beneficial to most players and should not be reverted.

I don't want a rollback for everyone, I was just replying to the people who said "well I bet you'd be really mad if they took away your FREE legendary relic".  Giving players the option is only beneficial, though.  And that's really what I don't understand about this.  Giving the people access to the SotO relics as part of the legendary is only a pure benefit to the playerbase as a whole, there is no downside, and yet, some people here are very upset about that notion, even though it is how the original announcement was written.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So you are happy with them miscommunicating that multiple runes are needed, happy with them correctly communicating that only 1 rune will be needed, and unhappy with SotO runes not being part of the deal (aka miscommunicating). Sure, I can see that. I can also see how maybe the amount of players crafting 1 rune might have shifted their initial decision to include SotO runes.

No, i am unhappy any kind of miscommunication happen. And no, i do not consider lately announced changes to be "correct" ones. Since both announcement turned out to not match reality, i'd say both were incorrect, albeit for different reasons.

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

We agree though that unlike what TC would be happy with, the current implementation is beneficial to most players and should not be reverted.

Reverted to which point? I'd say that the version announced just before the implementation is beneficial to more players than the current one (since i don't think there's a single player that benefitted from that last unannounced change, but there were definitely those that did lose due to it).

Notice, that i do not like the final version. I'd prefer the 7runes into relic one, if that also meant not changing status quo on legendary functionality.

(notice: i am talking about having to actively unlock stats, not about needing an expansion to access them - that last change i feel is justified, i just heavily dislike the way it got pushed through).

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

It's 700 gold loss in value (at 900 gold per rune), not over 2k (Previous Rune cost - Current Rune cost in relationship to current Relic cost. Or current totaal price of 7 runes+relic versus previous cost of 7 runes). But yes, I gave the math for 6 runes (actually estimated, I just punched in the total cost in efficiency and 7 runes+relic come out as 5,910 gold versus 6,300 previously for 7 runes at 900 gold and a free relic)and this will likely grow. Your 2k estimate is far off.

Original cost of runes (pre initial announcement) was around 300-350 gold per piece. It rose up as high as 900 only due to the "compensation" rush. I doubt it will ever go back to this value, but the current prices are still way up, and will go down. Same with relic, it's way, way overpriced now, in half a year or so it will likely lose half of its cost at least.

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Agreed, but as I've stated: I see this as reacting to a problem on the rise and an issue with legendary gear which was not considered in the past. The best they could do is be up and honest about it at this point.

Which they did not do. They kept dancing around the issue and trying to avoid telling us too much too early. And the current situation is the result.

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Tell the player base that account wide unlocked legendary gear which gives access to content which is not purchased is causing an issue and as such changes are being made.

That's probably what they should have done, and much earlier. Personally, i'd not be up in arms if they announced that legendary gear giving access to new stats was a mistake, and one they intend to rectify starting with SotO.

...as long as they would have made that announcement before SotO. Adding that requirement to the Relic without announcing it beforehand was bad. Trying to do it quietly, without making an announcement at all was even worse. If they do not feel confident enough to straight out announce decisions like that when they are made, then they should not be doing them at all. Bad PR from doing thing sthis way is just not worth it, nor is willingly sacrificing trust some players still have left in them.

Edited March 18 by Astralporing.1957

[Cuks.8241]

I craft legendary gear so I never have to bother with that piece again. They made a huge step in that direction with legendary armoury which was the reason I started crafting legendary gear. And now took a step back.

I don't know why they had to reinvent the wheel for this almost legendary relic. Well I can guess. They want incentive for players to buy expansions. And they are running out of legendary pieces so they want players to be engaged with gear progression in some other way - unlocking latest stats. I hope this unlocking doesn't mean also big material sinks because that would change it from "almost legendary relic" to "not really legendary relic". 

Anyway I don't think these new stats/bonuses are a big incentive to buy new expansions (content should be the incentive). 

In the end I don't care if this way a charity legendary and thus it's not really a full legendary. I would rather craft a true legendary that is 100% future proof without any additional unlocking and buying of new content required.

I really hope they don't pull this off with new stat combos and all legendary gear. 

[Mistwraithe.3106]

4 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

They want incentive for players to buy expansions. And they are running out of legendary pieces so they want players to be engaged with gear progression in some other way - unlocking latest stats. I hope this unlocking doesn't mean also big material sinks because that would change it from "almost legendary relic" to "not really legendary relic".

Exactly. Because they need to make money to continue to develop the game and many of the obvious hooks that could be put into new expansions are already well served (gliding, mounts, elite specs, legendaries).

Your choices are really to either have game support and development reduce or accept that they need to make a few (relatively minor tbh) changes like this to add extra benefits to buying the expansions. Note that it's just one lever, they also have more things (eg last expansion had OW legendary armour, extra weapon proficiencies, strikes, accessible Skyscale and story) they add in each expansion but Anet clearly feel they need the relic lever as well.

I'm fully in the latter camp as I want GW2 to continue to be developed as much as possible. This is a non-issue to me and tbh I'm surprised that legendaries weren't made this way from the start (ie it's surprising Anet didn't make it that you had to buy expansions to unlock stat bonuses in your legendaries from the start).

Edited March 19 by Mistwraithe.3106

[Mistwraithe.3106]

13 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That's probably what they should have done, and much earlier. Personally, i'd not be up in arms if they announced that legendary gear giving access to new stats was a mistake, and one they intend to rectify starting with SotO.

...as long as they would have made that announcement before SotO. Adding that requirement to the Relic without announcing it beforehand was bad. Trying to do it quietly, without making an announcement at all was even worse. If they do not feel confident enough to straight out announce decisions like that when they are made, then they should not be doing them at all. Bad PR from doing thing sthis way is just not worth it, nor is willingly sacrificing trust some players still have left in them.

That's fair and I agree that straight up is what I would have liked to see (not that I think they were particularly trying to hide it but they also didn't clearly communicate this).

Unfortunately Anet get a huge amount of criticism whatever they do. I feel that Anet have become fairly minimalist at what they say because every word they say gets over analysed and debated at great length, often with miss-quoting or interpreting. No joke that people are quoting things they said 8 years ago and trying to hold them to it, as though business doesn't change.

Maybe you wouldn't have complained if they have been more upfront as you say - or maybe alternative universe you would have complained even more loudly. Maybe Anet would have had a massive firestorm and people jumping on a boycott bandwagon if they had been more upfront. I dunno. I look at threads like this and see how heated up people have got about what I view as minor things that have quite a small impact and I wonder...

Edited March 19 by Mistwraithe.3106

[yann.1946]

On 3/17/2024 at 10:52 PM, Astralporing.1957 said:

Seriously, you've had example of someone that did get kittened over by the last change in this very thread.

I was very specifically talking about the change of compensation structure. Not the change/oversight of not having soto relics.

I should have probably more clear.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Exactly. Because they need to make money to continue to develop the game and many of the obvious hooks that could be put into new expansions are already well served (gliding, mounts, elite specs, legendaries).

The best hooks the could always use is good content. Problem is, that requires actual work (and thus resource allocations). The gear based progression systems they start turning towards now are much cheaper to use. Of course, "cheaper" also means being a much poorer quality offering for players.

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Your choices are really to either have game support and development reduce or accept that they need to make a few (relatively minor tbh) changes like this to add extra benefits to buying the expansions.

It's the other way around. The go for those methods because they have already reduced game development and support and try to make do with cheaper (but also more crude) methods. It's not either/or, it's having both. When we agree with them using those mehods, we basically allow them to siphon off resources from GW2 towards other projects and get a reduced quality content.

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Note that it's just one lever, they also have more things (eg last expansion had OW legendary armour, extra weapon proficiencies, strikes, accessible Skyscale and story) they add in each expansion but Anet clearly feel they need the relic lever as well.

Because beyond those hooks there's barely anything else left.

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I'm fully in the latter camp as I want GW2 to continue to be developed as much as possible. This is a non-issue to me and tbh I'm surprised that legendaries weren't made this way from the start (ie it's surprising Anet didn't make it that you had to buy expansions to unlock stat bonuses in your legendaries from the start).

I also do want GW2 to be developed as much as possible - and that's exactly why i am against all this. Because it leads to reduced development and game turning mostly into hamster wheel generator, where we're supposed to continuously prepare to have fun, but without ever getting to actual fun part.

[Astralporing.1957]

21 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I was very specifically talking about the change of compensation structure. Not the change/oversight of not having soto relics.

I should have probably more clear.

Fair enough. I was certain you were talking about the latter, not the former.

[yann.1946]

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

I don't think I need to draw up any hypotheticals to get the point across. This thread itself has examples of posters downplaying people's own cited personal experience issues. You yourself in this thread say "nobody was screwed over by the change" when there is somebody 2 posts above you who just described a way in which they were.

I was specifically talking about the acquisition changes to the relic, not the change to not allow soto relics. 

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

There is a difference between arguing over a larger narrative about the game's direction and telling someone their complaint about the game is invalid or being dismissive of it, and some people can go so hard into the 2nd one, there's a reason I posed a question like, "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."

This question does not really make sense to me, doesn't it presumes that people are not disagreeing because they actually disagree, but for some other reason. 

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

Not as some gotcha, but because I genuinely don't understand what some people think is going to happen that will be so bad if they aren't pushing back so hard against negative feedback.

Sometimes people push back because they strongly disagree, I don't think we need to look further into it perse.

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

I have seen in the past with open world legendary armor where in spite of some people being viciously against those who asked for it, it got implemented. So I don't really understand what people think they are accomplishing when they try to undermine, or be dismissive toward, someone who is trying to communicate their desires about the game and their state of mind about it.

I don't know if you realize it, but you are asking why people would give their opinion on an forum. The answer to that question seems self-explanatory to me. 

Over the years, some desires for vertical progression have popped into the forums from time to time, do you think people should have given counter arguments or not?

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

I want people to think about what they are doing and for what purpose, and that's what that question was about.

In my experience (and this applies to fandoms generally, far too often) it is almost never the case that someone who adores a product gets flak for doing so, but if someone has problems with it, even if they are a current and long-time fan who is actively using the product and enjoying it, then: if their feedback is emotional, they will be told to calm down or to leave; if it's detached, they will be accused of being someone who is only pretending to care and is trying to instigate; if it's personal, they will be told their experience doesn't matter much or is inconsequential; if they try to make it empirical, they will be told their facts are incorrect or are unimportant. How this is supposed to benefit players, I'm not sure. We are far more on the same side even at our most annoyed with each other than we will ever be on the same side with the company whose products we buy. Their agenda and goals are not ours and satisfaction occurs when our goals intersect with theirs in ways that result in mutual benefit, not because of any point where our goals are identical with theirs. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is really really really important for people to understand because if you think you are on the same side as the company, you will get burned in the moments when it becomes impossible to ignore that their agenda and goals are fundamentally different from your own. And it's not supposed to be a reason to be randomly mean or hostile toward a given company (I actually go out of my way to humanize the employees themselves when I talk about these things), this aspect of it is just about understanding power and agendas.

I broadly agree, sometimes people go to far.

I just think the line between dismissing a person vs criticing someones position is very thin, and varies to much from person to person. So if we spend to much time trying not to dismiss people we will not have an open conversation.

On 3/18/2024 at 12:44 AM, Labjax.2465 said:

Please, I am begging people to reflect on this. If you want to ignore everything else that I say or want to dismiss every single thing I've ever said about this particular game, ok, drop in the bucket, doesn't matter, but please listen and reflect on this one point, not for my sake or your sake, but for our sake.

 

[yann.1946]

Just now, Astralporing.1957 said:

Fair enough. I was certain you were talking about the latter, not the former.

Yeah, in that case my response would be silly.   😜

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Unfortunately Anet get a huge amount of criticism whatever they do. I feel that Anet have become fairly minimalist at what they say because every word they say gets over analysed and debated at great length, often with miss-quoting or interpreting. No joke that people are quoting things they said 8 years ago and trying to hold them to it, as though business doesn't change.

Maybe you wouldn't have complained if they have been more upfront as you say - or maybe alternative universe you would have complained even more loudly. Maybe Anet would have had a massive firestorm and people jumping on a boycott bandwagon if they had been more upfront. I dunno. I look at threads like this and see how heated up people have got about what I view as minor things that have quite a small impact and I wonder...

Again, it's the other way around. People debate on exact wording of Anet's statements and try to hold them up to those exactly because of their minimalistic approach to information, and their tendency to do significant direction changes based on technicalities of those wordings. All the while pretending as if nothing (important) had happened. Basically, whenever Anet uses an ambigious wording that can be interpreted in a certain way, and then refuses to clarify that issue, it usually means they at least consider such an interpretation a possibility. And that likely the interpretation they will use will not be the one players would like the most. It has always been that way, from the very beginning. It's not something that happened as a reaction to community responses, but something that generated this kind of community approach in the first place.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Again, it's the other way around. People debate on exact wording of Anet's statements and try to hold them up to those exactly because of their minimalistic approach to information, and their tendency to do significant direction changes based on technicalities of those wordings. All the while pretending as if nothing (important) had happened. Basically, whenever Anet uses an ambigious wording that can be interpreted in a certain way, and then refuses to clarify that issue, it usually means they at least consider such an interpretation a possibility. And that likely the interpretation they will use will not be the one players would like the most. It has always been that way, from the very beginning. It's not something that happened as a reaction to community responses, but something that generated this kind of community approach in the first place.

It's both, and sure Arenanet is in part to blame for that due to past communication.

Still they will get flack for almost anything they put out. Last time seen around the time communication was up with EoD.

This very thread has a few players which are not even active in the game, but still feel the need to complain. That's not GW2 unique btw, it happens on all game forums. Still it's unfair to dismiss this attitude as non existent.

The developers absolutely need to clear up their communication and work on not promising something, then not delivering on that promise. Meanwhile some players might want to check their personal approach, entitlement and personal responsibility contributing to these issues. Can't blame a developer for reducing communication with such an audience (which I personally disagree with, I think communication is always key, but I get they they are going back to being less open).

Edited March 19 by Cyninja.2954