Again, no. You’ve focused on semantics and reiterating arguments, so you’ve assumed that that’s what everyone else is doing.
Nah, I tend to limit how many times I reiterate arguments, and that just in case people joining a discussion didn’t read the rest of the thread. And no, I’m not assuming. I mean, did you not just engage in a back and forth about someone posting an opinion that you mistake as someone else stating their post as a fact? It’s just not within the realm of what I’ve been arguing for.
Try this:
- Make a list of the features that you would like to see included with a new race.
- For each feature, identify which ANet teams would have to be involved. You don’t have to know the names of the teams; it can be as simple as story, writing, armor design, combat animation, etc.
- For each team, also identify if the effort is once only or requires ongoing maintenance. (For example, setting up the Wardrobe was a major effort, but adding new skins to it requires no work beyond adding the skin. In contrast, adding a new NPC to Living World means arranging for 5 new actors for as long as the story continues.)
Again, you’re not really understanding the perspective I’m coming from. For me to make a list of features I want, is completely contrary to what my approach is, which is to question what a feature NEEDS and THEN discuss further, i.e. is a feature really needed? Can it be reduced or added over time? Can something replace a particular feature? If it’s uncircumventable, how much effort would truly be required for implementation and can that be reduced in some way? And if these changes in effort affects the overall quality and in what way?
I personally don’t think singling out which teams are required for a specific feature would help determine the overall stress on Anet as a whole as it seems most “teams” are either made up of multi-talented individuals or specialists of each required field being split among each team.
Here’s what others are doing with their own similar lists and the lists they’ve seen from others:
- Estimate how popular this would be for the community: niche appeal, minority appeal, broadly popular, or wildly popular.
- Compare the estimated effort to similar initiatives that ANet has implemented in the past (and/or seems to be working on now).
If you take the (small amount of) time to do this, you’ll discover what others have found: whatever effort that one might devote to a new race could also be spent on a variety of other things; in nearly all cases, those other things have a wider appeal than a new race.
In short, the question has never been: would people enjoy one or more new races in the game? (The answer is: most certainly.) Instead, people are asking: would a new race be the best use of limited resources, given the alternatives?
And frankly, I think your conclusion (if a feature is the best use of resources) is simply an assumption based on opinion. You can’t know what resources are necessary, you can’t gauge the amount of effort properly, you guess that these limited resources would simply all be wasted on a singular feature instead of rationed to provide a multitude of content and then you take all that (small amount) time you spent conjuring that conclusion to stifle constructive discussion to actually get a feature implemented.
That is to say, you can do whatever you want in these threads, get whomever you want shutdown by repeating yourself, but don’t come at a problem thinking making a sacrifice is somehow inherently the linchpin of any feature and thus its downfall. Anything worth doing requires sacrifice.
)))))))