Showing Posts For mmaisel.7096:
of course that’s how they would reverse it, but the point is, the idea that they would even reverse it in the first place is completely ridiculous in all but the most extreme circumstances, considering the reaction that the “here’s what we’re planning” thread had, to which they just said YOLO! with josh davis leading the charge. after all, we’ll play anything they release. that much has been proven.
I’m pretty sure it is easy to turn the white swords on and off.
right, because it’s a light switch, right? and the strings involved aren’t linked to literally anything else in the game right? there’s absolutely no way that any part of that code is linked in any way to any other part of the game that is still being developed for the next bright idea, right? and they listened when they announced the change and thousands of people said it was an awful idea, right?
Not thinking clearly you say? That is what I feel your doing when you are making disingenuous claims, displaying an entire lack of knowledge of programming and developer intent.
responses like this are what will ultimately be used to keep white swords out of the game. thanks bro! way to be a team player.
Horrible idea. Reasoning should be obvious for anyone not on an overstacked server.
Well, it’s a temporary change, so I guess you can call that a event.
saying or implying that it’s temporary is only a means to cause people to stop whining, so that 2 weeks from now they have an opening to say “welp, we tested it and we have seen favorable results!” or some such nonsense.
they threw a bone and you were clearly the target audience.
if you think anet can monetarily afford to pay their developers to implement this content, only to say two weeks later, “oh nah, they don’t like it. we’re just going to click the ‘undo’ button,” then you’re just not thinking clearly.
it only takes peeking at some of the other ridiculously underdeveloped parts of the game to understand that it’s being run on a budget. for instance, the hacking in wvw due to a large portion of the game files being hosted client side? yeah that’s done so they don’t have to pay for more adequate servers, which cost more than what they are using now. just one example; there are obviously several other underdeveloped aspects, but listing them all would be exhaustive.
literally the only thing that will cause a reversal of this laughably so-called “test” is a very obvious outrage from the community to the point that basically no one wants to wvw after the change. are you willing to go that far to change their mind?
this was apparently a “necessary change that encompasses more than [the lead forum communications rep] can really explain” or something to that degree.
likely the same type of screwball development as removing white swords from wvw.
anet pls.
Removal of white swords won’t make things fun… it’s pretty obvious that the folks pushing changes like these very simply just don’t play the game.
Removing swords will only require us to leave scouts on each objective. Which means one of two things:
1.) half of the people on the map will effectively be bored out of their mind for the entirety (or majority) of the time spent in wvw.
2.) half of the clients logged into wvw will be the second client of a person already in wvw on their main.
Either way you look at it, it’s only going to cause higher queue times when maps DO get queued, due to requiring more people in addition to the normal combatants. It wouldn’t surprise me if they anticipated that hardcore commanders would get fed up with sub-par scouts and purchase a second account in order to simply scout on a second monitor. If that’s the case, then it’s a pretty sorry attempt at a cash-grab…
Believing that a change like this will cause people to forget blobbing and adopt a weaker fighting tactic is laughable at best. Don’t kid yourselves. You’re promoting people AFKing a second account in a high traffic map area while they continue to blob — not promoting small roaming groups and objective defenders.
Any other change proposed is just going to be overshadowed by the monumental mistake of even suggesting that removing a system that alerts people to an attack will give defenders a stronger role.
Please go. Come back when you decide to actually fix the problem, rather than try to reinvent the wheel…