KiltMaster wrote: »I'm fine if vengeance is a permanent campaign so long as there are the normal options available for people who don't enjoy that playstyle.
Semi-artificial scarcity of resources/things in MMOs is the part that drives trade between players.
My opinion ==> Farming is NOT a legitimate part of the game. Picking up resources as you are playing is.
If farming was a legitimate part of the game then the development team would have a faster respawn rate so everyone can enjoy that part of the game.
I do not understand this argument at all. If someone makes a choice not to participate in group content or not buy a DLC (legitimate personal choices, by the way) it does not mean that any part of those are not legitimate activities.If farming is a legitimate part of the game, some of those resources would not be tied to group play or DLC locations.
Insufficient storage has nothing to do with farming being legitimate activity or not. It's made limited so ZOS could sell extras to players for $$$ (craft bag + double space for ESO+).If farming was a legitimate part of the game, would there not be more storage space provided to put those farmed resources?
Brian's responses were pretty discouraging; it feels pointless to provide them feedback. It's all about the spreadsheets and data for them. Nothing else really seems to sway them. If people like SkinnyCheeks can’t get through to them, then I don’t see how the average person can. And of course, the conversation between the two stops. It seems like SC landed some really good points and those points are now going unaddressed. We really need some fresh perspectives on the combat team.
As for the AUA: I'm happy it happened but it was pretty unsatisfying overall.
It seems like we're stuck in this loop:
- Us: can we have more information and insight into the game's future?
- Them: we don't want to share things before they're ready. Things might change.
- Us: Ok, but we're fine with things changing. Our feedback needs to be considered sooner, too many controversial changes.
- Them: <leaves conversation>
This is what has to change.
I mean, obviously, there's feedback, especially at the top end, where they're like, ‘Now everything's the same.’ Only because you want it to be that way.”
This rings a little out of touch or sort of cavalier, imo. Of course people at the top end would love to be more creative with their playstyles, but some fights are designed in a way that you need to optimize in very specific combos to clear. I would love for the devs to show us a quite off-meta composition clearing hard encounters with decent times/vitality.
Its about somehow missing the plotRkindaleft wrote: »I was mystified by the answers.
The comments about the sets were perplexing enough however the comments about 'having to nerf substantially the consumables if they were to touch them'... I can't wrap my head around that.
'Have to' why? based on what logic? and who is the intended audience? more importantly who is 'making you do it'?
However it does explain why I find some changes baffling. They weren't intended for us the players. They were for whomever is 'making them do it'.
It makes zero sense. They dropped Subclassing with pretty much no consideration about how it would affect combat, giving everyone who uses it properly a massive power boost, but they won't hybridize potions and food because it "could" be too strong? What's the logic here?