Saran said:Orael said:There's a thread for these kind of comments, feel free to comment there with your concerns!Saran said:Orael said:The admin deciding to maintain the status quo is absolutely false. A goal that I've stated multiple times is that I want everyone to feel like they can compete. That's the direction we're heading when we look at things like the mage revamp etc. It's something I think we achieved with the Aeonics rework and it's something we'll continue to work towards. We recently reworked two major complaint artifacts and are looking at a third. We are making strides, but it takes time. We'll continue to make strides.Anaklusmos said:in all seriousness, this topic has been hashed out to death. The admins have decided to side with Glomdoring and maintain the status quo. Nothing is going to change.
Move on.
Prioritising a brand new conflict system over continuing in this "direction" really doesn't help the look of things. Reading over the forums, it seems as though what's coming next is another opportunity for the "winners" to extend their lead and for the "losers" to feel bad about themselves.
If I'd had to deal with some of the bonuses being suggested while I was active, I'd be logging out the moment any raiding started.
The fourth comment in that thread expresses concern about it and then is dismissed.
Actions speak louder than words, in the current context of the game the administration decided it was more important to add in yet another conflict mechanism rather than dedicating the dev time spent on that to bringing more equivalence across the orgs.
If equivalence was the focus then would it not be the focus right now and be receiving the same "nothing can get in the way" treatment Timequakes is receiving?
And the individual(s) being referenced speak(s) for the group as a whole? This is my point. Someone who has not been following every discussion / is new to the forums is not going to have that context but instead be presented with an unfavourable façade of an entire group, which is unfair. All I was asking for was that posters not generalize like Ayisdra did, which people have acquiesced to (thank you to those who have, it's much appreciated).Minkahmet said:Besides, it was clearly obvious by the context of who the reference was to given the number of threads that devolve with this synonymous statement.Rancoura said:
Lycidas said:I can be wrong, but I believe Saran is talking about the initial pushback and groaning given for yet another PK event. The pushback and groaning, mainly, being from the players that feel there are bigger issues than not having enough ways to murder the opposition. Due to the perceived (Using this word specifically since it has been said as much by both players and admins until evidence can be supplied to show the imbalances) imbalances, many players are already not engaging in combat or other conflict mechanics simply because there is no point. So to them, yet another way to just have a loss rubbed in their face is being introduced.
So the statements such as the ones that are being brushed aside, are valid to the people making them and to the people of relatable mindsets. It is a feeling of oppression to them and kind of just feels like you're shushing them all the while whispering, "Just let it happen." Whether that is the case or not, doesn't necessarily matter, because perception is what drives people's opinions. Therefore, if the perception is "they don't care about us" you're going to receive these kind of statements.