NewTrain.7549
I should be able to win an Olympic gold medal without ever going to Olympics. It’s not fair that I’m not athletic enough. The Olympics alienates me by making gold medals exclusive to winners of events. I should be able to pay 3000 of whatever currency I want and be able to get an Olympic gold medal.
Lol, I think you can. At least one of those cats must be hooked on pain killers and looking to pawn
Your comparing a game to the Olympics?get a grip its entertainment or rather is meant to be.Anet are about making money and sell us the use of a product.
They have started the very gear treadmill they always said they were against.exotic to ascended then its on to legendary armor. then next year its mythic or whatever.the point is they changed there philosophy and changed the game for the worse.if you have issues with people buying there gear instead of good old fashioned wasting hours on the pc grinding. take it up with the sellers anet.
It’s a satirical metaphor for your own complaint on the issue. One that I purposefully crafted to be near identical to your post. I understand that video games and the Olympics are not nearly at the same level of competition or effort, that isn’t the point. The point it that it’s ridiculous to feel that you’re entitled to earn something others have worked hard to obtain simply because you have disposable income.
Also based on the tone of your posts, it’s a bit hypocritical to tell anyone else in this thread to “get a grip”.
“Best in slot” has a very specific definition that is tied to stats. The definition is not “what each individual player prefers in the spot” it’s an objective “what provides the best stats”. This is not up for debate.
You can buy an exact copy of the world championship trophy. It has the same value and function(standing around) as the original, it just lacks the prestige of the original.
No, it actually doesn’t have the same value. I’d invite you to look at the few Olympic medals or championship trophies that have been sold and compare those prices to replicas. Not the same in the least.
So what about the best in slot promise made within mins of the no new tiers promise.
i take it in your anet suck up deluded mind that legendary is not best in slot gear ether.
absurd.
Look up my post history, you’ll see I’m anything but an ANet “suck up” and I’m telling you that your argument is entirely unreasonable. It’s not fanboyism that’s causing nearly everyone else in the thread to disagree with you, it’s that your argument has zero merit.
I should be able to win an Olympic gold medal without ever going to Olympics. It’s not fair that I’m not athletic enough. The Olympics alienates me by making gold medals exclusive to winners of events. I should be able to pay 3000 of whatever currency I want and be able to get an Olympic gold medal.
It’s like going into a restaurant and telling perspective customers that the pancakes used to be much better.
So let’s say I was looking for the best local pancake house. An acquaintance recommends Billy’s Pancake Depot saying it has “the best pancakes I’ve ever had”. So I decide to go to Billy’s and upon getting there a patron who is leaving tells me “if you’re here for the pancakes be aware they changed the recipe and it’s nowhere near as good as it was.” I would consider that helpful advice since the only reason I was there was a recommendation based on outdated information. I don’t want to waste money because my info was out of date. I would gladly thank that patron for giving me new information.
I am getting tired of all inactive players who throws filth on these forums…
Not sure how you know these players are inactive. The minute we start saying one person’s opinion is genuine and the other person’s opinion is trolling is where we get into trouble. We just have to deal with it.
Always write your opinion, positive or negative, with a smile on your face and a smile in your heart.
They often tell in their posts that they stopped playing a long time ago, but still they keep on haunting the forums. I too have always found it weird why someone does that.
Because they want to get their money’s worth out of the purchase and they find the forums far more fun and entertaining than they did the game.
Why are people having trouble understanding that the old daily system didn’t exclude people like the OP whereas the new system does? Why was this a necessary change?
Instead people would rather blame the OP’s psychology. Is that how low some of ANet’s defenders have lowered themselves; to attack the mentality of someone with a physical disability instead of admitting maybe the change in dailies was unnecessary?
Gw2 was never focused on hardcore content….you don’t go in a theme park to do math…
Way back when I was in high school, we took a class physics trip to Six Flags. We had a massive assignment to do wherein we had to calculate rate of acceleration and the amount of Gs a ride produced. So yeah, we actually did go to a theme park to do math. Literally.
I didn’t actually defend that. But since it is obvious you enjoy feeling like you are correct all the time as evidenced here and on other threads, think what you will. I agree, we have nothing more to discuss. It is useless and you aren’t worth the effort. I bid you good day.
Yeah, you actually did. Either that or you were completely oblivious to the conversation you jumped into. But hey when in doubt just ad hominem, right? Classy.
And if there is no expansion, why doesn’t Gaile or another dev swoop in to say “sorry folks, there’s no expansion in the work” in all these expansion threads?
Because it would horrendous PR. Despite what some people feel about the lack of need for an expansion, any announcement that one was not in the works would lead to a reduction in active players.
And what if they said, we have intentions to introduce a new profession and race, but it won’t be through an expansion?
So what if they did? They haven’t. They won’t. You know ANet’s (non)communication policy just as well as the rest of us. Moot point.
Way to completely ignore what I’m saying.
If they are working on a new profession, even if they don’t tell us that, it will come at some point. It may not come in an expansion.
So how does that change the equation?
I didn’t ignore what you said. You posed a highly improbably hypothetical. I pointed out that it was so improbable it wasn’t worth considering as a possibility. Seems, if anything, you ignored what I said.
Besides, none of that matters anyway. The person I quoted asked why ANet doesn’t admit to the lack of an expansion. I answered. Nothing more needed to be said.
Half the stuff on this forum doesn’t “need” to be said. It’s a conversation because ideas lead to other ideas…unless you’re completely closed minded of course, in which case ideas lead nowhere.
It’s not improbable and why you think it is is beyond me. But it doesn’t matter. You’ve made up your mind.
Because ANet has clearly said they’re not sharing information about things in (or not in) development. That makes it highly improbable they they’d suddenly announce that Living Story is going to provide a new profession and race. Obvious improbability is obvious. You’ve clearly commented on ANet’s lack of communication before and I’m not sure why you’re suddenly playing dumb about it now.
And FYI ideas only lead to other ideas when they’re in the realm of possibility. You’ve shouted down people asking for open world PvP and mounts before because they didn’t fit into probable development. So why now are your “ideas” somehow exceptions to your own rules of conversation?
And if there is no expansion, why doesn’t Gaile or another dev swoop in to say “sorry folks, there’s no expansion in the work” in all these expansion threads?
Because it would horrendous PR. Despite what some people feel about the lack of need for an expansion, any announcement that one was not in the works would lead to a reduction in active players.
And what if they said, we have intentions to introduce a new profession and race, but it won’t be through an expansion?
So what if they did? They haven’t. They won’t. You know ANet’s (non)communication policy just as well as the rest of us. Moot point.
Way to completely ignore what I’m saying.
If they are working on a new profession, even if they don’t tell us that, it will come at some point. It may not come in an expansion.
So how does that change the equation?
I didn’t ignore what you said. You posed a highly improbably hypothetical. I pointed out that it was so improbable it wasn’t worth considering as a possibility. Seems, if anything, you ignored what I said.
Besides, none of that matters anyway. The person I quoted asked why ANet doesn’t admit to the lack of an expansion. I answered. Nothing more needed to be said.
And if there is no expansion, why doesn’t Gaile or another dev swoop in to say “sorry folks, there’s no expansion in the work” in all these expansion threads?
Because it would horrendous PR. Despite what some people feel about the lack of need for an expansion, any announcement that one was not in the works would lead to a reduction in active players.
And what if they said, we have intentions to introduce a new profession and race, but it won’t be through an expansion?
So what if they did? They haven’t. They won’t. You know ANet’s (non)communication policy just as well as the rest of us. Moot point.
And if there is no expansion, why doesn’t Gaile or another dev swoop in to say “sorry folks, there’s no expansion in the work” in all these expansion threads?
Because it would horrendous PR. Despite what some people feel about the lack of need for an expansion, any announcement that one was not in the works would lead to a reduction in active players.
We’re not talking about handguns, we’re talking about pistols. Did you not read any of the posts you responded to? Here, this is from your own link:
“Some handgun experts make a technical distinction that views pistols as a subset of handguns. Sometimes in American usage, the term “pistol” refers to a handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel, making pistols distinct from the other main type of handgun, the revolver, which has a revolving cylinder containing multiple chambers."
And
“The first handheld firearms that might better be called “pistols” were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown."
Maybe in the future not only read what you’re responding to, but also the links you post as, in this case, they might refute your argument.
Despite this, the fact remains there were no pistols in the 13th century. You can argue semantics all you want, but you’re not correct. No one with any shred of historical knowledge or firearms knowledge would make such an inaccurate statement and trying to defend the existence of 13th century pistols is like trying to argue that the Mughal Empire had tanks because they armored elephants and mounted guns on their backs. It’s simply not true.
Just to be clear and have our facts straight, as wikipedia says also:
“The word “pistol” is often synonymous with the word “handgun”. "
In general usage they can be used to refer to the same thing.
And no I am not arguing about the timeline of their creation at all. But if you are going to tell people to get their facts straight, you should do the same.
And then the rest of that paragraph (and the page) go on to state why the words are actually not synonymous and why experts make a distinction. So yeah, I have my facts straight. You may want to do the same.
Here’s something for you to read:
“A pistol is a handgun – but not all handguns are pistols.”
Furthermore it seems you’re unaware that the OP specifically stated pistol and not handgun. Again, facts are useful.
From that paragraph: Some handgun experts make a technical distinction that views pistols as a subset of handguns. Sometimes in usage, the term “pistol” refers to a handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel, making pistols distinct from the other main type of handgun, the revolver, which has a revolving cylinder containing multiple chambers. But UK/Commonwealth usage often does not make this distinction.
So, “some”, “sometimes” but often does not. My only point here is that in general usage/conversation many people use the words interchangeably. I, personally, do not. I actually do make a distinction between the words. So, if someone used the words as synonyms, referring to the first pistol being from the time period where the first handgun was made, would be correct.
Oh and pointing out that the OP asked specifically for Pistols and not Handguns doesn’t matter. The weapon is in the game under the name Pistol, regardless of what the skin looks like or what type of real-life weapon it does/doesn’t resemble.
But this is getting rather off-topic…..
On topic, I agree with OP. I agree pistols, in general, need some more skins. “Modern” looking or otherwise.
I also think when they add new legendary weapons, they should add a new pistol to balance out Quip. Legendary weapons like Quip, the Moot and the Dreamer will only appeal to a certain niche due to their physical appearance and effects.
If you’re so confused that you’re willing to defend the labeling of a 13th century Chinese hand cannon as a pistol, despite what every historian or firearms enthusiast will tell you, I don’t think we have anything more to discuss.
We’re not talking about handguns, we’re talking about pistols. Did you not read any of the posts you responded to? Here, this is from your own link:
“Some handgun experts make a technical distinction that views pistols as a subset of handguns. Sometimes in American usage, the term “pistol” refers to a handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel, making pistols distinct from the other main type of handgun, the revolver, which has a revolving cylinder containing multiple chambers."
And
“The first handheld firearms that might better be called “pistols” were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown."
Maybe in the future not only read what you’re responding to, but also the links you post as, in this case, they might refute your argument.
Despite this, the fact remains there were no pistols in the 13th century. You can argue semantics all you want, but you’re not correct. No one with any shred of historical knowledge or firearms knowledge would make such an inaccurate statement and trying to defend the existence of 13th century pistols is like trying to argue that the Mughal Empire had tanks because they armored elephants and mounted guns on their backs. It’s simply not true.
Just to be clear and have our facts straight, as wikipedia says also:
“The word “pistol” is often synonymous with the word “handgun”. "
In general usage they can be used to refer to the same thing.
And no I am not arguing about the timeline of their creation at all. But if you are going to tell people to get their facts straight, you should do the same.
And then the rest of that paragraph (and the page) go on to state why the words are actually not synonymous and why experts make a distinction. So yeah, I have my facts straight. You may want to do the same.
Here’s something for you to read:
“A pistol is a handgun – but not all handguns are pistols.”
We’re not talking about handguns, we’re talking about pistols. Did you not read any of the posts you responded to? Here, this is from your own link:
“Some handgun experts make a technical distinction that views pistols as a subset of handguns. Sometimes in American usage, the term “pistol” refers to a handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel, making pistols distinct from the other main type of handgun, the revolver, which has a revolving cylinder containing multiple chambers."
And
“The first handheld firearms that might better be called “pistols” were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown."
Maybe in the future not only read what you’re responding to, but also the links you post as, in this case, they might refute your argument.
Despite this, the fact remains there were no pistols in the 13th century. You can argue semantics all you want, but you’re not correct. No one with any shred of historical knowledge or firearms knowledge would make such an inaccurate statement and trying to defend the existence of 13th century pistols is like trying to argue that the Mughal Empire had tanks because they armored elephants and mounted guns on their backs. It’s simply not true.
I would like to see more modern looking pistol skins.
The majority of the pistol skins look like 13th century pistols…
There’s no such thing as a 13th century pistol. The first pistols weren’t developed until the 16th century.
please dont hate me..but that here in the attachment is a chinese handgun from the yuan dynasty (1279-1368). Yea.. pretty much just a tube with one closed end filled with gunpowder and a stone but its a gun nonetheless. Sorry for nerding about >_<
Yes it is a gun. It is a hand cannon, designed to be used with two hands. It is not a pistol. There is a huge difference.
“The oldest surviving gun, made of bronze, has been dated to 1288 because it was discovered at a site in modern-day Acheng District, Heilongjiang, China,…”
Eitherway not claiming to be an expert or anything, but thats what I’ve read.
See my answer above. Hand cannons are not pistols.
I would like to see more modern looking pistol skins.
The majority of the pistol skins look like 13th century pistols…
There’s no such thing as a 13th century pistol. The first pistols weren’t developed until the 16th century.
Wiki tells me otherwise, althought it’s a vague depiction of a pistol/firearm.
No it doesn’t. From Wikipedia:
“The pistol originates in the 16th century, when early handguns were produced in Europe. The English word was introduced in ca. 1570 from the Middle French pistolet (ca. 1550).”
You’ve attempted to suggest that pistols existed in the 1200s (13th century) when cannons had just barely been introduced to the Asian battlefield. Europe didn’t see cannons until the Siege of Cordoba in 1280CE. The first “hand-held” firearm used in Europe was the hand cannon, which was in the 1300s (14th century) and that’s a far cry from a pistol.
People need to stop saying things like “the Living Story can deliver X, Y, and Z just fine so there’s no need for an expansion.” Until the Living Story actually delivers X,Y, and Z (and for most people their particular X, Y, and Z have not been delivered and in some cases their W has been removed) that kind of argument holds absolutely no merit when discussing the desire for a traditional expansion.
On the same token, people need to stop saying that without an expansion the game will die, people will leave in a mass exodus, and Anet will go out of business. Because those arguments have no merit.
As far as LS not delivering X, Y and Z…we already got X and Y from the LS alone. New game mechanics (X) and maps (Y). (i.e. Boss mechanics, new skins, new gear stats, instances for story telling, new maps, new achievements, new enemy types, new mystic forge recipes, etc.)
Your X and Y and everyone else’s may (and probably do) differ significantly. I highly doubt many people rate “new mechanics” as an integral part of expansions. Furthermore, even if people share your particular X and Y, I doubt anyone would say they received them in full. If Y is new maps, most would say the Living Story has delivered maybe a third of what would be expected out of a 2 year life cycle.
So if your argument is that Living Story is currently delivering traditional expansion-like content in both quality and quantity, you’re clearly out of touch with the expectations of many gamers. Now, given that Living Story is clearly not meeting many people’s expectations (obvious from a cursory examination of in-game chat or the forums), those saying that without an expansion GW2 will ultimately face a mass exodus do have merit to their argument. Name me a single game that grew its playerbase by failing to live up to the player’s expectations, because I can name dozens across multiple genres that did, in fact, have a mass exodus due to spotty content delivery.
People need to stop saying things like “the Living Story can deliver X, Y, and Z just fine so there’s no need for an expansion.” Until the Living Story actually delivers X,Y, and Z (and for most people their particular X, Y, and Z have not been delivered and in some cases their W has been removed) that kind of argument holds absolutely no merit when discussing the desire for a traditional expansion.
That’s between 100-200 hours. That’s a lot of hours for most games.
That’s a lot of hours for SINGLE PLAYER games. For games with multiplayer components, that’s laughably few. In one of my favorite games of ever, having only 100 hours of play will get you booted from most lobbies for being a noob (unless it’s a noob-only lobby).
Did you read my post or you pick that sentence and freak out? I said EXACTLY THAT. Most ppl play MMO like they play a single player RPG. Even when they join a guild, they stay in their corner, complete the storyline, do a couple dungeons, get some get and that’s it, they are out of the game, and right into the next one. I was like that with WoW and SWOTOR. I was in 3 different PvE guild in GW2 and it was the same kitten for all three. About 50-60% of the players were never mixing with the rest, played 100-200 hours and never came back.
They are single player gamers that try out MMO to get that single player rpg feeling. Whatever you do, you won’t keep them in the game, that’s not what they search.
You might want to refrain from accusations of “freaking out” when your posts are far more histrionic than the one you respond too.
Perhaps you should also focus on what I said. I specifically referenced that 100-200 hours is not a lot for games with multiplayer components. If MMOs are unable to keep people playing for that amount of time, they’re doing something incredibly wrong. FPS, MOBAs and RTS games manage to keep people playing much longer than that and many would argue they’re far more repetitive. So I reiterate, 100-200 hours is not much for a game with multiplayer. Any multiplayer game unable to maintain people’s attention longer than that is severely lacking.
Actually I think you’ll find that most people who try an MMO don’t last 100 hours in most of them. That’s why devs keep trying to retain more. Even WoW revamped their opening because too many people weren’t sticking with the game long term.
That’s between 100-200 hours. That’s a lot of hours for most games.
That’s a lot of hours for SINGLE PLAYER games. For games with multiplayer components, that’s laughably few. In one of my favorite games of ever, having only 100 hours of play will get you booted from most lobbies for being a noob (unless it’s a noob-only lobby).
In the end, this recipe is voluntary. The item is desirable but not essential. Players may decide for themselves if going for a particular item is right for them. In the end, I believe that it really is that simple.
The game is voluntary as well, as is buying gems. The devs would do well to remember this when they focus on RNG-based rewards which are ultimately frustrating and not fun for players.
My only hope is that in January 2015, an expansion is announced, and there are plans to have a massive, massive overhaul of loot, dungeon revamps, trait fixes, new skills etc. as a lead-in patch for the core game as well as the expansion.
Based on what ANet has done to GW2 since launch and how they’ve communicated with their players, I will not purchase any expansion. It could give me mesmer powers in real life and I wouldn’t purchase it. That’s how much faith I’ve lost in this company.
Gotta love the people saying that the OP “skipped” his way to level 80. Please explain why tomes of knowledge and crafting exp exist if not to…wait for it…level up.
I don’t understand this focus on PVP. GW2 will never become a real E Sport and even if it does it has no chance to compete with dedicated Mobas like LOL, DOTA2, or Smite. Meanwhile they are taking away resources that can be better spent on new content for wvw and pve.
Yeah, god forbid the arguably most neglected part of the game get an update. How dare they?
If ANet had a PvP focus as you claim, PvP wouldn’t be in such a horrific state currently.
The point is any effort at all is wasted on PvP. Even if they removed that game mode all together it would not make a difference since a vast majority of players spend most of their time in pve and wvw.
They are wasting too much time on that game mode currently as is.
If they removed PvP altogether they could kiss a large chunk of players goodbye and we all know how badly ANet needs to trim down it’s overwhelmingly large player base (sarcasm). There are many more who play exclusively or mostly for PvP than you seem to realize.
I would say they’re wasting far too many resources on a horrific PvE experience and they they should no longer develop for PvE, but at least I have the insight to realize my opinions don’t constitute objective fact. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one in this exchange who realizes that.
I don’t understand this focus on PVP. GW2 will never become a real E Sport and even if it does it has no chance to compete with dedicated Mobas like LOL, DOTA2, or Smite. Meanwhile they are taking away resources that can be better spent on new content for wvw and pve.
Yeah, god forbid the arguably most neglected part of the game get an update. How dare they?
If ANet had a PvP focus as you claim, PvP wouldn’t be in such a horrific state currently.
By the tone of the OP’s post, it’s obvious he’s made up his mind and isn’t seeking legitimate feedback, otherwise i would’ve answered.
Just because you don’t agree with the feedback given doesn’t mean it isn’t legitimate. I would say he got plenty of legitimate feedback and made a decision based on it.
EVE isn’t my type of game and I never clicked with it, but I wouldn’t say it sucks. It’s actually a very good game if that’s your particular cup of tea.
It’s fairly obvious that this “program” is a PR smokescreen. Honestly, you all have the information you need to make the game better. You’ve had it for months (if not longer) and chosen to ignore it. Attempting some half-baked forum specialist program isn’t going to earn you back the goodwill you’ve thrown away, it just reinforces the idea that you think your playerbase is stupid and easily deceived.
How many of you revolutionaries starting all these nonsense threads are sitting behind desks in offices with the Blizzard logo shining brightly on your ID badges?
When African Americans have dominated society and deprived Americans of European descent their rights to marriage, education, healthcare, and other basic freedoms, you can start claiming the use of “n*****” is a double standard. Until that day, it’s merely an attempt to claim a word that has been used for generations to belittle and degrade a group of people based on the color of their skin and thereby deprive it of its potency to hurt.
Good combat mechanics ruined by sub-par profession balance and an overabundance of particle effects. Balance updates are far too infrequent and lack testing for PvP to be anything more than an afterthought. Content delivery system is free, but the quality is equivalent to the price tag. Overall a game with tons of unachieved promise and potential. A textbook case of a wonderful concept ruined by poor design choices/updates.
I honestly can’t believe this thread is still active.
OP in numerous posts chastises others for trying to make predictions about the game’s health without having access to ANet’s actual data. OP makes a thread predicting the game’s health without having access to ANet’s actual data. OP sees nothing wrong with his actions, even trying to paint himself as some champion of the silent majority.
That is why this thread is so utterly worthless (plus the dubious validity of source “data” being referenced).
I can’t believe you’d waste your valuable time posting in an utterly worthless thread. I think many things said on this forum are worthless…but you know what? I’m sure the people who posted them and other people see value in them.
There are people who see value in this. But a thread doesn’t open or close on your values.
Thanks for not addressing the crux of what I said. This is why people get so frustrated trying to have a dialogue with you. You’re far more interested in preaching than in actually responding to the points people make.
Look at this thread as an example. There are people who fundamentally agree with your point that the game is not dying, but because of the manner in which you present that point, you’ve alienated them. Now, some of your would-be-supporters are actually arguing against you, not because of your message, but because of the way you chose to deliver it. If you’re trying to counter-balance the negativity on the forums, you’re undermining your own efforts.
I must have missed the paycheck from ANet for the new job I’ve been assigned of improving the game. I mean, we all, as players, got hired for this new position, right? What other reason could there be for people trying to foist that responsibility on the players when it rightly should lay with the developers?
That being said a boycott isn’t the answer. Not unless it was a near universal player moratorium on buying gems. It’s far easier to just stop playing.
Trying to claim that there is a hard correlation between google search terms and game purchases is ludicrous. A very loose correlation surely exists, but trying to prove the health of a game by analyzing how many times that game’s title is typed into google is a fool’s errand.
Trying to provide a hard core link between the following facts, however, does mean something.
1. Anet’s quarterly report (which shows the game is still profitable).
2. The Google search trend.
3. The Overwolf best games chart
4. The Xfire top games chart.
5. The Raptr top games chart.
6. The fact that there haven’t been any major layoffs at Anet, in spite of NcSoft reorganizing and laying off people from Wildstar. Hell, Anet is still hiring.
7. The game is getting updates. You may not like them, but they’re putting an awful lot of work into a game people say is dying.
It’s not one fact that paints a picture. It’s a combination of facts. One source saying the game is strong relative to other games means nothing. Three sources means only a bit more. The search trend adds to it. The lack of layoffs adds to that. The quarterly report. The hiring.
I’m not really sure what’s so hard to understand.
It’s people’s subjective my guild, my friend’s list, I don’t play the game anymore, and the fact that the game is obviously being played by someone.
Who’s playing it hardly makes a difference.
Numbers 1, 2, 6 and 7 were not mentioned in your original post. Number 2 was brought up only later.
I guess it really helps you to “win arguments” when you modify your statements after they’re criticized for being incomplete.
Furthermore this brings up to whole point of this thread. You constantly bash others for attempting to predict the state of the game without having access to Arena Net’s numbers, yet here you go doing exactly that. Quite hypocritical if I do say so myself.
Trying to claim that there is a hard correlation between google search terms and game purchases is ludicrous. A very loose correlation surely exists, but trying to prove the health of a game by analyzing how many times that game’s title is typed into google is a fool’s errand.
I worked in the software industry for a bit and we never, I repeat never, let a week go by without communicating to our customers what our current development priorities were. And you know what? Sometimes we didn’t meet our deadlines, which we explained to our customers with the reasons why. And guess what? Our customers were angry. Know what else? Life went on, we continued developing the software, and our customers knew exactly what we were doing. I dare say our stakes were higher too, since it was $65 million dollar project (yay for government contracts). I guess I can’t understand why ANet is unwilling to act in a similar fashion.
You’re trying to say people didn’t pay attention to a stream that hasn’t even occurred yet. Seriously?
No, I am trying to say that people complain about lack of information, when there is fully available information on the official site. The stream itself is quite irrelevant to the post I quoted, since he wanted a source for upcoming balance changes, which is quite clearly stated in the post I linked.
Yeah, a post that occurred yesterday advertising a stream for today. It wasn’t a headline for balance changes. Trying to berate him for “not paying attention” to that is incredibly petty. It’s also pretty disingenuous to try use it as an example of the player base ignoring information from ANet.
Well, new Profession balance information is coming this Friday, and they are taking feedback on those proposed changes, and will use it to adjust them….so, there’s that. =)
Yet another great example as to why there is no point of them being more transparent, seeing as those that demands it the most doesn’t even bother looking up the available information.
You’re trying to say people didn’t pay attention to a stream that hasn’t even occurred yet. Seriously?
