Best Of
Re: No base game update in 48?
RandomKodiak wrote: »I do hope Brian does not hate Sorcs as much as whoever we had these past couple of years. Not all Sorcs are PvP streakers, some of us play PvE. Sorcs have been nerfed into the ground for the last two years in PvE and I hope we can see a reversal of that next year. I am not asking to be the best at everything and realize that they are still good in PvP but as a Sorc PvE main the last few years have been painful.
I'm sorry to tell you that Brian is the same Brian we already had in charge of combat the last however many years.
"Meet the new management, same as the old management."
Pevey
4
Re: Overland Content Feedback Thread
spartaxoxo wrote: »Some players have one sugar cookie they can enjoy and a whole plate of various cookies they are allergic to and cannot enjoy.
Yeah, no. Vets being unable to play it because it's not designed to include them is very different from someone who doesn't enjoy group play. Normal trials and dungeons are already in the game. And many casual users play and enjoy them. They aren't allergic. It's existence does not cause them harm. Some of them don't feel like eating the sugar cookie with blue frosting because they don't like blue. But it's still a cookie baked to the taste of sugar cookie enjoyers.
It's more like I hate peanut butter so I should be the only with a sugar cookie, if we're going to treat the other content as cookies on this plate.
Obviously, I don't mean by using the term "allergic to" in this analogy that I think any part of playing a game actually harms anyone. To clarify, I was just using the metaphor to express that some players can't participate in most of the non-overland content, and that includes so-called "normal" difficulty in dungeons and trials. I won't rehash all the reasons why here as we've been over them in this thread before, but I will amend the analogy as follows: I stipulate that of the people just eating the sugar cookie, some are allergic to the other cookies (can't play the rest), some could eat the other cookies only after seeing a doctor and getting a shot or otherwise preparing and jumping through hoops, and some just don't like the taste of the other cookies just as the people in the second group don't like the taste of the original sugar cookie.
To clarify another point, there are obviously other players I didn't mention in the analogy who like sugar cookies and some of the other cookies but not all of them. This is an analogy. I was simplifying to make a point.
I don't think one group should be the only one with a sugar cookie, but whether or not they get a sugar cookie made to their exact taste is the real question. They already have access to the sugar cookie.
Analogy aside, as I've said before, I don't necessarily mind an optional increased overland difficulty solution if it doesn't affect my game play. I'm not so sure it won't affect me, but we won't know until we hear the details about ZOS's answer to the issue and test it out. I do have concerns about what a reward system that doesn't punish players who opt out of increased difficulty could possibly look like. We'll see, I guess. I do think there should be a story mode in other content as a balance, and I appreciate your support in that.
The whole reason I responded to your initial analogy is because I didn't think it was a fair assessment of the context of the overland difficulty debate. It seems to me the those who object to an increase in overland difficulty are frequently told, in so many words, that they are just selfish and unjust. It's not that simple. I don't think the arguments against increased overland difficulty (or against exceptional rewards for increased overland difficulty, as we already know the increased difficulty itself is coming in some form) are being given a fair shake. They are often just being dismissed out of hand. I was modifying your analogy to point out that there is another way to look at the whole of the situation from the other side and to hopefully dissuade people from just assuming that anyone who objects to overland difficulty is just doing so for selfish or unfair reasons.
Coming from someone who's passionate about fighting for Overland difficulty, I also do not think there should be exceptional rewards. I can't speak for everyone here, but I think extra XP and gold is enough. In fact, I'm just happy with extra gold, I don't care about any other rewards. I also do not think there should be exclusive bonuses that can't be obtained outside of Overland difficulty, such as pets, mounts, skins, personalities, etc. I'm very minimal when it comes to extra rewards. In my opinion, players who choose to not partake in any Overland difficulty should not feel like they're missing out on any prizes.
Re: Favorite alliance answer
Since a wintery-cold forum mod arbitrarily closed another thread.
I'm on standby for when mods decide to close the fashion megathread due to its age too 🫡 I hope they don't get upset either, since their thread closures are a form of public communication/posts. So mentioning it here to explain why this thread even exists shouldn't be considered a no-no (hopefully).
So you're upset your old thread was closed? Necro Posts are against the forum rules and they encourage you to open a new thread if you want the discussion to continue, which you have done.
No need to be throwing shade at the Mods over it.
Re: Subclass Hot Take…
No thanks. I like subclassing because it gives us the flexibility and freedom to more creatively craft our build. To layer on another set of limitations detracts from that freedom, trying to force builds back into some box/preconceived notion.
Subclass Hot Take…
Categorize class lines and limit one per category.
Just like the wikis, or in game, each class has 3 skill lines. Typically the first in line is more dmg based, second is hybrid’ish, third is more healish, afaik.
Basically, pick one from each category but not two of the same.
Just like the wikis, or in game, each class has 3 skill lines. Typically the first in line is more dmg based, second is hybrid’ish, third is more healish, afaik.
Basically, pick one from each category but not two of the same.
SneaK
3
Re: No base game update in 48?
They said near the end of the stream that no recognizable QOL changes until 2026.
At least, I think that's what they said. They asked it of Brian Wheeler representing Combat/PvP which I find a bit odd.
At least, I think that's what they said. They asked it of Brian Wheeler representing Combat/PvP which I find a bit odd.
Re: No base game update in 48?
Mathius_Mordred wrote: »I've been playing since closed beta. So I've seen all yearly updates, the chapters, the trials, the dungeon packs and events.
My overall take on this year is one of trimming down the game, cost savings and getting away with as little as possible without shedding too many players.
You no longer do the incredible trailers that we were all mesmerised by, probably because of the cost, but also because there is really little to advertise in them. You have lost a lot of staff and are now run by one of the largest corps in the world who literally only care about shareholder dividends and boy does it show.
etc....
This text perfectly reflects my gaming experience and feelings. I wouldn't change a single word, and it saves me a lot of time explaining myself.
