Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?

@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Getting endgame viable and actual endgame gear is still different.

This is really becoming too subjective. What's "endgame-viable" in PSO2? Sigma, Nemesis, Atlas or Croesus?

To be honest I'm not actually sure what endgame-viable weaponry you're considering was available to level 30 players on Ragol. VHard wasn't even accessible at that level unless the character had probably been carried through Dark Falz on Hard, so you may be talking about low-end uniques like Varista which are still a hard downgrade compared to their successors in higher difficulties. As for whether they can be used in Ultimate... sure, but that's not so much about gear progression being better as difficulty progression being reduced, and of the (much longer) level grind being a larger portion of PSO's progression, especially in the Dreamcast days.

To remind, PSO never had to sustain a playerbase for 9 years and counting. When moving from Dreamcast to PC to Gamecube to Xbox to PC again every last one of those moves performed a total reset and that added replay value for those who either followed a move or returned to the game for a fresh start (most likely one of the consoles to Blue Burst) which meant there was a period of time that they didn't play so they could get over burnout and let nostalgia take over before returning with a fresh start that didn't punish their absence with missed content as live-service games suffer from.

PSO2 has had to do that, and keeping a game like this alive for 9 years requires giving the players who've kept on top of their progression a fresh challenge - higher level enemies and new difficulty tiers included - at least at semi-regular intervals as well as new levels and equipment to earn to work towards overcoming that challenge.


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

The other subject you touch on - farming in all areas being viable - is a definite product of its age

Not really, there are several modern RPGs that follow this idea and that some items had insane drop rates and the issues with the section ID system are a different topic altogether.

It'd be nice for you to name some of these RPGs so we could compare then. I feel they may have other mitigating factors (like not being live-service at all).

As for insane drop rates enabling viable rares in all of the game's mere four areas, no, that is related because it speaks to how content variety was handled in PSO where the rate of finding any rares and the EXP gain was so low that it was generally best to just run whatever you felt like at the time in groups with EXP as the primary goal and any rares found along the way were a bonus. Hunting for specific rares as is the case with PSO2 wasn't nearly as much of a thing back then.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Replaceing "the player doing 1000 damage vs. an enemy with 10000 HP" with "the player doing 10000 damage vs. an enemy with 100000 HP" does not make for more difficult content.

Yep, but what it does do is give the player a need to progress from doing 1,000 damage to doing 10,000 damage. The replacement you speak of isn't a magic universal upgrade that applies to everything instantly; the moment the extended difficulty is added the new or tougher enemies will get 100,000 HP and the players will still be doing 1,000 damage. That's where the added progression comes from!

Hello everyone! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. While we are closing in on parity, this information will be helpful for the developers moving forward, and it will be shared.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

What's "endgame-viable" in PSO2?

Items that are still valid choices to use for endgame content even tho they are not designed to be used for the content in question e.g. Rykros Staff.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

To be honest I'm not actually sure what endgame-viable weaponry you're considering was available to level 30 players on Ragol.

The M&A60 Vise for example, you can still find videos where people use it in ultimate mode to shred the mountain area boss in <2 sec. even tho there are better options to do the same thing out there.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

It'd be nice for you to name some of these RPGs so we could compare then. I feel they may have other mitigating factors (like not being live-service at all).

Guild Wars 2 and the Borderlands games for example. The former is definitely a "live-service game" and the later is (in its current "version") basically run like one. Now these games have their own issues in regards to progression (e.g. GW2, while not being plagued with vertical progression at endgame, also has no meaningful horizontal gear progression (aside from stat builds) either) but the point was that they try to keep content relevant which they do.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Yep, but what it does do is give the player a need to progress from doing 1,000 damage to doing 10,000 damage. The replacement you speak of isn't a magic universal upgrade that applies to everything instantly; the moment the extended difficulty is added the new or tougher enemies will get 100,000 HP and the players will still be doing 1,000 damage. That's where the added progression comes from!

And yet you still ultimately end up at "square one" meaning you were not able to actually "progress your caracter" in any meaningful way, all you did is replacing numbers with bigger numbers while rendering existing content useless in the process when you could have gotten new build options and new content that adds on to the existing one instead.

At least during the tutorial phase you get the benefit of easing new players into the difficulty you were aiming for by replacing "the player doing 50 damage vs. an enemy with 100 HP" with "the player doing 333 damage vs. an enemy with 1000 HP" with "the player doing 1000 damage vs. an enemy with 10000 HP" but once you leave the tutorial phase the practical benefit of adding further cycles vanishes.

It's also not really something "the hardcore players" get much value out of as they are usually done with the "number replacement" in no time, they could have gotten more out of "new difficult content" where the difficulty comes from "what the enemies do" instead of the "soon to be trivialized again" stat boost.

@GM-Deynger said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

While we are closing in on parity, this information will be helpful for the developers moving forward, and it will be shared.

Excellent, thanks! I'm sure with their years of experience giving JP players reasonable notice of forthcoming updates has let them know players like knowing what's coming, but it'll definitely help to let them know specifically that we'd appreciate being included on that when we have parity.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Items that are still valid choices to use for endgame content even tho they are not designed to be used for the content in question e.g. Rykros Staff.

Rykros Staff is only 14★ and only beats out 15★ harmonizers because its potential (a free buffed Megid every pet PA when Megid itself was already buffed) is sufficiently beyond the capability of any 15★ harmonizer during Alter Ego. It may not have been until they added an even stronger Redux version.

You could also include Jupiter Tullus as a similar option that's beyond compare, thanks to those exceptionally strong lightning blades (again with Redux) that accompany every PA, but I hear that some 15★ potentials or maybe SGAs also provide that so that may not be the case forever.

Honestly I'm not sure these are great examples because in both cases they are considered BIS for their respective situations (last I checked, Summoners only switch to a harmonizer with a better passive damage potential when Alter Ego is on cooldown). So there's still only one good option for that situation, which just happens to be 14★ instead of 15★ but is still pretty endgame.

When it comes to variety and having multiple viable endgame-viable options, it would be nice if there were multiple choices that were either sufficiently close in a linear scale of power or were actually comparable and were effectively sidegrades of each other instead of the seemingly constant presence of one magic best-in-slot option.

I do think it'd be nice if New Genesis went that route, and I wouldn't mind so much if you had to be in the top 10% of the level progression to be able to try for any of them. It'd be more important if they were spread between multiple quest types - including ones that weren't the newest - so the older ones still had purpose.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Guild Wars 2 and the Borderlands games for example. The former is definitely a "live-service game" and the later is (in its current "version") basically run like one.

Yeah I wouldn't speak too highly of Borderlands in the first place, and none of them have tried to run for 9 years on their own; in 11 years there's been 6 different games, and it's unlikely the gaps that existed (namely between 2014 and the release of 3 in 2019) were filled with most of their players playing every day. I doubt this compares.

Guild Wars 2 is a better example, though perhaps a unique one as it made a very deliberate point of being an exception to the progression of most MMOs. I confess to not knowing much about it but it does seem they've provided progression mechanics in other areas like masteries and specialisation. If that model is still how it operates and that works for them, great, but that does seem pretty exceptional.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

the moment the extended difficulty is added the new or tougher enemies will get 100,000 HP and the players will still be doing 1,000 damage. That's where the added progression comes from!

And yet you still ultimately end up at "square one" meaning you were not able to actually "progress your caracter" in any meaningful way, all you did is replacing numbers with bigger numbers

Welcome to JRPGs? At the end of the day the entire genre is about the pursuit of making various numbers bigger. That's how Phantasy Star has always worked since the original game in 1987 and with very rare exception that generally comes from a genre switch (like PSO Episode 3).

I get the impression PSO2 and the rush of content that was the Global release might have given a bad impression of this form of progression. At least up to 50 in JP was handled differently when it was first released; I'm not too sure from 50 to 75, or whether JP got bonus keys quite as soon as we did after Episode 4 and onwards incrementally raised the caps. I do think it's more engaging when it takes a little longer to level up and I'm hoping NGS is a little more like JP PSO2 than Global PSO2.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

I doubt this compares.

It does based on the context of what I was originally responding to: that the goal of keeping as much content as possible relevant is a "thing from the past".

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

I confess to not knowing much about it but it does seem they've provided progression mechanics in other areas like masteries

That's for the most part just stuff that allows you to traverse the areas.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

and specialisation.

"specialisations" are essentially subclasses.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

If that model is still how it operates and that works for them, great, but that does seem pretty exceptional.

The only real exception here is that there is no constant push for vertical progression at endgame but the rest is pretty much what you would expect from your average MMORPG. The main takeaway however is clear: there are no notewothy drawbacks of them not constantly power creeping the game.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Welcome to JRPGs?

Again an empty response that only shows that you don't seem to have a substantive rebuttal to my pont. The fact that its direct predecessor doesn't go that route just further invalidates your response.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

At the end of the day the entire genre is about the pursuit of making various numbers bigger.

Not really, the genre is about individualizing and progressing your character. "Bigger numbers" only make sense to a degree based on where "The Hero's Journey" ends.

In your average single player RPG it's at the end of the game when the hero defeats the "demon king" and as I said the gear progression serves to underline this: "the wooden sword" in the beginning -> "a sword made out of steel" during the midgame -> "the legendary holy sword" at endgame.

M/MMORPGs however are different: while still similar at the beginning you will reach what usually would be "the peak" way before the end of the games life cycle. For PSO2 this point would be the end of EP3 / beginning of EP4 when the MC became "the Guardian" at with point the MC was essentially "the best ARKS has to offer" and no one is questioning it meaning that there is also no development anymore that needs to be underlined.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

That's how Phantasy Star has always worked since the original game in 1987

Exept the "the original Phantasy Star" was not a MORPG and like I said just because "other games to it" doesn't mean that this is beyond criticism (especially since their overuse of vertical progression does impact the game in an overall negative way). It only means that the devs fail to look outside the box as they mindlessly try to apply what works for story driven single player RPGs to M/MMORPGs which have completely different demands on their progression system (both from a narrative and a "mechanics" point of view) which several people here seem to white knight "just cause".

@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

I doubt this compares.

It does based on the context of what I was originally responding to: that the goal of keeping as much content as possible relevant is a "thing from the past".

You can't really speak to context when you specifically ignore mine. No Borderlands game wanted players to play them regularly for 9 years. Fact.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

If that model is still how it operates and that works for them, great, but that does seem pretty exceptional.

The only real exception here is that there is no constant push for vertical progression at endgame but the rest is pretty much what you would expect from your average MMORPG. The main takeaway however is clear: there are no notewothy drawbacks of them not constantly power creeping the game.

Again ignoring context. You were speaking of a supposed wealth of MMOs that don't do what you label vertical progression. As that link shows, Guild Wars 2 took the approach it did specifically because that's precisely what MMOs do and they wanted to be different.

"What does raising the maximum character level in a persistent online world really achieve, other than allowing people to take on new, higher-level content? When did that become the norm for an MMO expansion anyway?" - Colin Johanson, then Game Director of Guild Wars 2.

To do something that's not the norm is to be exceptional.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Welcome to JRPGs?

Again an empty response that only shows that you don't seem to have a substantive rebuttal to my pont.

I'm not going to waste time when your point seems to be nonexistent. You claim there's plenty of MMOs out there that don't do your hated vertical progression in spite of (a) the one relevant example you gave had a director who was quoted as saying the behaviour you hate was normal and (b) you not just playing those MMOs instead.

I mean really, if you hate it so much and there are so many better games out there that do it in a way you prefer, why are you playing this one? There's no sense to that.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

The fact that its direct predecessor doesn't go that route just further invalidates your response.

I really don't get what you think being purposefully ignorant of PSO's technical limitations in 2000 which I have just explained in recent posts is going to accomplish.

PSO all the way through to Blue Burst simply couldn't add new areas, levels, equipment, radical new quest types and so on without releasing a new disc. All seasonal lobbies and most of the mechanics behind temporary missions were essentially "on-disc DLC" (the Dreamcast did this a bit - also see the Sonic Adventure titles and Skies of Arcadia).

It's ridiculous to praise PSO for not doing so-called vertical progression when literally the one time it made an updated release on the same platform (Ver.2 on the Dreamcast) it did raise the level cap and if you want to be exaggerative it was by the largest amount of any update in Phantasy Star history.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

At the end of the day the entire genre is about the pursuit of making various numbers bigger.

Not really, the genre is about individualizing and progressing your character.

Yeah I sure do remember changing the aesthetics of Alis Landale in Phantasy Star, or the Fighter in Final Fantasy, or any of the other characters whose individualisation was at best giving a four-letter name to your unchangeable sprites.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

M/MMORPGs however are different

@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

the "the origina Phantasy Star" was not an MORPG

I don't agree with dismissing a series' connection to its roots just because a new game is described as being in a genre with a different acronym.

I'm likely going to be very offtopic here but,

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Again ignoring context. You were speaking of a supposed wealth of MMOs that don't do what you label vertical progression. As that link shows, Guild Wars 2 took the approach it did specifically because that's precisely what MMOs do and they wanted to be different.

There were more than one MMO(A)RPGs that were a good mix of vertical and horizontal, and weren't so purely vertical in the past. It wasn't just Guild Wars 2. Many of them were pre-World of Warcraft Era.

Final Fantasy 11 was vertical during the levelling phase but pretty horizontal at level 75, and kept their level 75 cap for about six and a half years. Despite the level cap staying 75 for that amount of time, there were plenty to strive for, expansions and patch updates weren't just outright "bigger numbers". In 2010, they decided to increase the level cap ("for modernization"?), coincidentally, that year was also when they had a new director, though probably unrelated as the level cap update announcement predated the director swap several months.

Ragnarok Online's levelling was vertical, the gears were pretty vertical during the levelling phase but there was also an upper limit to the verticality, and if my memory serves, that gear upper limit was never raised and all progression at the level cap was horizontal in the form of getting a blacksmith/whitesmith to make elemental weapons for you, hunting down monster cards for specific builds, or hunting down the game's equivalent of Notorious Monsters for equipment that aren't just outright bigger numbers.

Guild Wars 1, the predecessor to Guild Wars 2 — and possibly the only MMORPG that was almost purely horizontal — had a very low level cap of 20, which was never raised, and is still 20, but the possibilities at level 20 were many times more abundant than many modern MMORPGs of today's design of "This is the best thing you can or have to get when you reach this level and you have practically no need for anything else until something with bigger numbers is introduced in a later update after which you can just toss this old best thing away like yesterday's trash".

I would bring up more MMORPGs of that age, if I actually stuck when them long enough to claim that they had any decent semblance of horizontal progression, but I did not really play the others long enough, so I won't name them.

I will admit that three isn't exactly a wealth of them, but if we dig deeper into pre-WoW/Themepark era, we may (or may not) find more MMORPGs that doesn't obsolete gear/content every few updates.

I'm not against vertical progression, and from what I read here, I don't think @Ryoga is against it either (I may be wrong, I can't read minds).

What I (or possibly we?) hope for is to have an (arguably) good balance of Vertical and Horizontal. Most MMORPGs that I've tried nowadays are too blatantly vertical, where the horizontal options are either seemingly nonexistent or meaningless, but I will admit that PSO2 is one of the lesser offenders and that there is still some measure of horizontal choices in PSO2 that I enjoy that most people tend to ignore or don't plan on taking the time to find. And I don't want to see PSO2 end up like FF14 where everyone at level X with ilvl Y gear are basically carbon copies of each other where the only difference between them are who pilots the character. (For clarity: I'm not saying it will and am not insinuating that it is heading in that direction.)

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

You can't really speak to context when you specifically ignore mine.

I can because at that point you were just moving the goalpost.


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Again ignoring context. You were speaking of a supposed wealth of MMOs that don't do what you label vertical progression.

Not really, it's you who got the context wrong. I said "several modern RPGs" (with the original referance point being PSO1) so where did I say anything about "a wealth of MMOs that don't do what I label vertical progression" again?


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

I'm not going to waste time when your point seems to be nonexistent.

You being dismissive of it doesn't change the fact that it's still a valid point. Also,"Welcome to JRPGs?" Implies that this is something inherent to JRPGs (if anything it's inherent to story driven single player RPGs). PSO is a JRPG that A: "doesn't overdo it" and B: is directly associated with this game which is more than enough to invalidate your statement. That they "couldn't add new stuff" is compleatly meaningless because if what you're implying here was valid then there would have been more than enough verticality in their end game gear progression to begin with.


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

You claim there's plenty of MMOs out there that...

No, you claim that that this is what I claim despite the fact that I didn't actually said anything like this.


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

It's ridiculous to praise PSO for not doing so-called vertical progression

Except that's not what I said:

"while PSO was not purely horizontal it still became (for the most part) more and more horizontal the further you progressed", "I never said that PSO was the "pinnacle of horizontal gear progression" (or even that there shouldn't be vertical progression at all".

How someone can misinterpret this as "praising PSO for not doing vertical progression" is beyond me.


@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

Yeah I sure do remember changing the aesthetics of Alis Landale in Phantasy Star, or the Fighter in Final Fantasy, or any of the other characters whose individualisation was at best giving a four-letter name to your unchangeable sprites.

Individualization is more than just optics...


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

M/MMORPGs however are different

@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

the "the original Phantasy Star" was not an MORPG

I don't agree with dismissing a series' connection to its roots just because a new game is described as being in a genre with a different acronym.

You might not like it but the two statements you quoted are just objectively true.


@Misuran said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

from what I read here, I don't think @Ryoga is against it either

You are absolutely correct, I even said "story driven single player games have no reason not to use it" and also named several benefits of using it in M/MMORPGs. But it should only be used when it makes sense and the benefits of using it outweigh the potential negatives which I don't think is always the case.

@Misuran said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

I'm likely going to be very offtopic here but,

Agh, sheesh. I hadn't even realised this wasn't the topic. Sorry all!


@Misuran said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

There were more than one MMO(A)RPGs that were a good mix of vertical and horizontal, and weren't so purely vertical in the past.

Some good examples there, thanks! Even some I can relate to. In particular dropped XI pretty fast after Aht Urhgan released since it was just more Sneak & Invis to the next time-gated story quest or feature creep each day or four and it felt like nothing was worth playing for, so in that sense a lack of so-called vertical progression killed my interest in the game.


@Misuran said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

What I (or possibly we?) hope for is to have an (arguably) good balance of Vertical and Horizontal.

Yeah agreed. I've been pretty open that I think it'd be a big improvement if Sega broke their silly habit of introducing a new shiny quest type that immediately obsoletes half a dozen others because it's the only place to get shiny medals or the new highest rarity of drops. Simply by scaling up the drop tables in existing quests to also give shiny medals or a few unique drops instead of having the new quest monopolise them, it'd give the whole game a nice refresh every time there's such an update.

But what I'm (and several other posters before the last page or two) objecting to is this idea that all vertical progression is bad. On JP PSO2 had a level cap of 30 during the beta and 40 on initial release. 40. We haven't even had the game for a year yet globally and most of us probably can't even remember what level 40 was like. If it had been kept that way PSO2 would have died and New Genesis would never have been imagined. So I think it's best we don't take that train of thought too seriously.


@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?: You can't really speak to context when you specifically ignore mine.

I can because at that point you were just moving the goalpost.

It's called a counterpoint. If you make a point that has poor relevance (in this case the idea that PSO with its extremely limited content set, inability to update and up-front payment would have any chance in today's MMO-heavy scene), doing anything other than calling that out would be silly.

But if you're going to play shenanigans with "You can't ignore my context but I can ignore yours" then this isn't going to be a conversation in good faith and I don't feel like wasting my time or taking this any further off-topic. Later.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

But if you're going to play shenanigans with "You can't ignore my context but I can ignore yours"

I never ignored any context, just the empty "fluff" you tried to insert and the "context" you blatantly made up ("Again ignoring context. You were speaking of a supposed wealth of MMOs") to be dismissive. But just to remind you, here is the actual context:

me: "none of the levels became obsolete due to power creep"

you: "farming in all areas being viable - is a definite product of its age"

me: "there are several modern RPGs that follow this idea"

you: "It'd be nice for you to name some of these RPGs so we could compare then. I feel they may have other mitigating factors (like not being live-service at all)."

me: "Guild Wars 2 and the Borderlands games for example. The former is definitely a "live-service game" and the later is (in its current "version") basically run like one."

Which you dismissed on the bases of GW2 being "an exception" and BL3 not "runing for 9 yeas" which A: doesn't realy matter unless you can give actual reasons for why it would and B: is already completely deprived from your original argument of it being a "definite product of its age". GW2 alredy showed that you can keep large amounts of content relevant for exended periods of time and I've yet to hear any actual reason as for why it woudn't also work for BL3 (assuming they actually try and do at least a decent job with their horizontal gear / content progression) so my original point still stands.

@Miraglyth said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

then this isn't going to be a conversation in good faith

My responses were always done in good faith, you bringing this up however is quite ironic given that you tried to put words into my mouth on multiple occasions so you might want to do some self reflection here.

@Miraglyth Just because you call something "context" doesn't mean it actually is and I already called you out for it so why don't you at least show some courtesy and try to not waste anyone else's time with these TBH quite pitiful responses.

@Ryoga said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

@Miraglyth Just because you call something "context" doesn't mean it actually is and I already called you out for it so why don't you at least show some courtesy and try to not waste anyone else's time with these TBH quite pitiful responses.

You're doing a "whataboutism" when people here clearly proved you wrong. At this point i'd recommend everyone to just ignore. He won't take no as an answer until he "wins" or someone along those lines.

Move along folks and end it.

@Zeke said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

You're doing a "whataboutism" when people here clearly proved you wrong. At this point i'd recommend everyone to just ignore. He won't take no as an answer until he "wins" or someone along those lines.

Putting words into my mouth is not "proving me wrong", neither are seemingly arbitrary "counterpoints" people don't even bother to explain when being pushed on it. The whole reason why several people here (including yourself) even came after what I said in the first place was because they read stuff into my posts that I never said to begin with. There is no "He won't take no as an answer until he "wins" or someone along those lines." because neither I nor anyone else here tried to convince people that "all vertical progression is bad" but keep believing that if it makes you happy.

Also, like it or not but this is a discussion forum. If you reply to someone then you should expect that person to reply back to you. If you don't like this then you might be in the wrong place here.

@Zeke said in Can we have more transparency in global pertaining what is next in updates or a road map at least?:

At this point i'd recommend everyone to just ignore. He won't take no as an answer until he "wins" or someone along those lines.

Move along folks and end it.

Good idea. Done.