battlewraith

Regardless of what the next suggestion is, the general response will be the same. Too many oldsters enchanted with the repetitive tedium that was designed to keep them paying$15 a month. Changing that would be like rearranging the furniture at the retirement home. If people are only running Numina to get the accolade, isn’t the real problem that Numina isn’t appealing on it’s own? Is linking rewards that people want to content they don’t like good game design? I think the accolades were introduced at a time when people were new to the game and hungry for content. Killing various enemies would just normally happen in the course of playing. Clicking a couple extra boxes to get an accolade was not a big deal. It’s 20 years later. There’s nothing novel or challenging about doing this for the hundredth time. People have pointed out that the accolades and their constituent parts are optional. If that’s the case, then there’s no harm in making it less of a blatant time sink. The net result would probably be more people doing it, or pursuing it on more alts.

Looks like Borderlands 4 is going to have some stiff competition.

I made a couple comments disagreeing with Troo. If it bothers you so much, put me on ignore. You seem to want attention, then you complain when I give it to you. Make up your mind Boo 😃

Here we go again, I’ll try to break it down for you. The subject of this thread is the acquisition of accolades. Troo said that the introduction of “fake-accolades” for pvp didn’t pan out, and that we could “surmise” the same thing happening in pve if they started giving such awards away. There is no case to be made that pvpers stopped playing the game because of the introduction of these accolades. None. The pvp community had long wanted a change like this and it was a rare instance where they got something they wanted. The fact that there may be less pvpers now, after that change, is a correlation. One QOL change is not going to make or break a game mode. The thought that this change, if it was a good one, would flood the arena and zones with new players is also a stupid. Then in his response to my post, Troo does more of the same—there seems to be fewer pvpers after this change, etc. And then he does his over generalized logic flow. Now TRY to follow along here. He says this: Accolades can be necessary in order to be competitive. (True in pvp) Removing the hassle of doing a bunch of objectives to get those accolades seemed like a good move. (Past tense, as this was only done for PvP) Now fewer players. (Meaning fewer pvpers, as this was a PvP only change). Troo did not state the PvP community would drop off—he is implying that it did drop off. And he’s offering that up as an example of what could happen if a similar change happened in pve. Which is a very weak argument that relies on a shallow perception of PvP in this game. Capiche? That’s all for this episode of BW’s Reading Rainbow, where I explain to dumbfounded posters the gist of conversations I’ve had with other people.

My favorite Redford film was Three Days of the Condor. Apparently the Russo brothers cast him in Winter Soldier as a kind of homage to that film.

Well, first off this is factually wrong. If you're doing competitive pvp you need them. Otherwise you will be a soft target by default and farmed. Secondly, there are 2 contradictory objections to this proposal floating around this discussion: 1. Nobody needs these accolades, thus you shouldn't be able to purchase them. 2. If you could purchase them, wealth disparity would be negatively impacting poor players, who would still have to grind out the accolades. These can't both be true.

In the part I quoted. Maybe read it?

For the life of me, I can't see how being able to skip the rigamarole of doing accolades for pvp characters would've lead to the death of the pvp community. It's a pretty bizarre speculation.

What? Accolades in pvp were necessary in order to be competitive. Removing the hassle of doing a bunch of pve objectives was a good move. Saying it didn't "pan out" doesn't make any sense.

Which had been greenlit, with the the same director and featuring Sam and Quorra. Then Tomorrowland flopped and Disney cancelled it. I'm still pissed about that. This looks like it's going to a disaster. The first trailer made it seem like humans were pulling programs out of the grid to use as weapons. That longer trailer with all the footage of previous Tron movies seems desperate to remind people what the Tron franchise is about. The recent spots make it look like the programs on the grid have just decided to go to war with humans. Jered Leto is coming off some serious flops. There's only so much that Trent Reznor can do to generate hype for this movie.

That is my assumption. When they released the thing into the sheep, it was watching Kirsh. Boy genius came in and drew it's attention saying basically "look at me, I'm the important one." I took that as a foreshadowing. I was a bit disappointed in the flashback episode where the eyeball had taken over the engineer. I was hoping that when the eyeball takes over an entity, it access the victim's brain and can draw on memories, thoughts, etc. The guy barked like a seal, but didn't seem to display much in the way of human thought.

There are 8 for this season.

Episode 6. The most enigmatic character on the show to me is the synth Kirsh. After watching this episode, it's difficult to view him as anything other than a stealth antagonist. Possibly an anti-human agent in the mold of David from Prometheus.

I thought you were against it. Didn't you just spend the last couple pages insisting that people move on? WHO ARE YOU???

A lot of folks are fixated on vertical thinking rather than lateral thinking, and expect everyone else to follow suit. That's the more salient issue imo. Lol because they are problem solving seminars. This is like saying "people who jump into a pool overwhelmingly get wet." Ideation is not problem solving. So is there no exceptional thinking? Who decides what exceptional thing is? You? Rudra? Lol like Darwin. Galileo. Socrates? Or pretty much anyone that routinely argues on the forums including you?

It sounds insulting because it is. It's writing off people that don't agree with you by assuming they lack good reasoning skills. Meanwhile, Ghost is writing people off for being psychologically deficient. These responses are very expected at this point and emblematic of what is being pushed back against. There are two batshit crazy notions being fronted here. The first is that ideation is this tiny thing that you briefly do before getting to the real meat of the issue, which is problem solving. Nonsense. Ideation is the most important part. If you don't have a good idea, and people that are passionate about that idea, everything that follow is a waste of time. The fallout from this emphasis on problem solving is a forum populated with mundane, seemingly doable tweaks. As Oklahoman rightly pointed out, something bold like the Labyrinth of Fog would never have passed muster here. The second thing is that people should just "move on". People are being faulted for pushing back against naysayers--probably because their weak, untrained minds can't handle "the critique". Actually, in reality nothing happens without follow through. Innovation and good ideas go nowhere unless you fight for them. And the fact that people may say they don't like an idea--means absolutely nothing unless you expect the entire audience for your game to be roughly the same sort of person.

The same can be said for the for the other side. The people that you described, that don't want change, absolutely want affirmation. They want to play armchair dev. They want to wow people with their arguments and their knowledge of the game and the lore and everything else. They want their friends to give them emojis for their good points and strike down the bad people with the bad emojis (lol). They will go on for pages and pages arguing shit. But you expect the people that are hyped about some idea to just drop it and then walk away. What? First of all, why would any normal person bother to do that? Secondly, you really can't see the blatant double standard you've got going on there? Some people are like that, but I don't think that's the gist of the complaint. 1. Very few things are implemented. 2. Things that are implemented are done slowly. 3. There is a group camping in suggestions that think it's their dharma to pick apart ideas and evaluate those ideas by criteria that these people think are relevant. The complaint is not "wah, you hurt my feelings." The complaint, I believe, is more that, given point 1 and 2, the insistences of the people in group 3 are unnecessary and a buzzkill. And yes, that's how life and the internet works. Wanna drive away engagement--fill a place with people hellbent on critiquing the shit out of everything. That's why you have people sneaking over to general discussions to make covert suggestions over there. They are trying to avoid the mentality frequently seen here.

There are people out there who do like change. They like novelty. They like to spitball weird ideas. They don't choose to be that way, it's just how they're wired. Have some understanding instead of branding them whiners, complainers, trolls, people beating a dead horse etc. The "do not like change people" act like fate tapped them on the shoulder to be a forum garbage cleanup crew. That turns others off. That's why we have these discussions. Nope. If you think an idea is terrible, leave it alone. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, the less response a post gets the faster it disappears. The people that demand suggestions be treated like engineering reports and pick everything apart don't really add anything, they just kill whatever fun other people may have had spitballing an idea. And drawing attention away from other ideas in the process. I agree with the move on sentiment, but it's misapplied. If you see an idea you think is bad, move on. Weigh in on the suggestions that you actually like and actually want to help flesh out.

As you noted in that thread, that guy's idea was largely rejected by forum regulars--to the point that he accuses Rudra of existing to flame people. His actual idea was not implemented. The general idea to give controllers (but not doms, like he asked for) more control was implemented. The implementation that happened was what MMs and lore pets already had in game. You really mean to tell me that this thread had some impact on this transition? Like some dev read that and thought "wow, what a great idea. We should do something about that." And then they hustled on that idea and got a change implemented within a year, whereas simpler examples took four or five years to implement. Yeesh.

Absence of evidence is an indication that you probably shouldn't take a particular claim very seriously. I don't haunt this place like some, but I haven't seen a rash of the devs implementing bad suggestions posted here. I haven't seen that happen to anything close to a significant degree at all. And it was nice of you to commit your time to doing this. You certainly did find examples, but I think it's also important to remember that those examples took years to go from a suggestion in a thread to implementation. IIRC, the first example you cited took 5 years to be implemented. The person who asked for it has long since left the game, or at least the forums on that account.

🍻

And then the added irony of you taking me to task for this. Ok, so with respect to this conversation you're pointing to an idea that had nothing to do with this forum and was immediately removed.

All the suggestions are toast. The point of this subforum is to make toast. The negativistic Nancies that congregate here accomplish absolutely nothing other than frustrating other players, characterizing them as complainers, etc. There is no world where the devs are going to see a bad idea, something impractical or unworkable, and run with it based on what someone suggested here. And the quickest, most efficient, and most civil way to respond to these ideas is to just ignore them. They would quickly fade away.

"It's part of the game" is a non argument. The game is something that has been developed by different groups of people and has changed significantly over time. Something as simple as the fact that that there are now 2x xp boosters available all the time is huge. Why is this that case?--I don't know the official reason but I suspect that the core audience is now well into middle age, has less time to waste on video games, and is much less interested on a slow crawl through the lower levels. The devs could've just ignored this concern and said "well grinding xp at the normal rate is just part of the game." The result would've been a certain percentage of the population leaving. Someone saying "it's part of the game", especially in a suggestions forum, is the equivalent of them saying "I'm fine with the way things are now." The problem with that is that the game should be able to support a broader range of interests, not just those of people who are deeply committed and will probably be here until the lights shut off anyway.

The problem is that there is likely no option that would not have a negative effect on the market. The market is predicated in part the interaction of people who don't know what they're doing or are in a hurry. I would like to see non-fungible enhancement options that would be cheaper but would be locked to a character or account and could not be traded. But even the reduction of people participating in the market would have some effect. You can acknowledge that the market is part of the game without seeing it as a mandatory activity for players that don't like it. IMO it's too prominent. It should be a convenience, not a panacea.