@Archetype-Luna

That's some dedication. Bless.

@Akonyl

I thought they updated their response here about it being deleted when they announced the moving up of the date? Either way yeah i'm not in huge hopes, just would be a shame to lose the history regardless of good or bad.

@Piazzolla

Unfortunately if you are in the fleet discord you won't be rid of him. He's just as obnoxious there as he is here. He did say he won't be migrating to ARKSPOD at least though. Lets see if that stays true.

@Weirdo

Interesting. Hopefully it does stay on read only. I know some people have taken to getting screens for the useful threads here to be posted elsewhere. But it would be nice to have more than one place with the info even if one of them won't be updated anymore.

@Aumires

It would instantly power creep every other class. You'd have much more mobility than any other class. You'd literally never die. You'd be the only class that has a meter that has an infinite uptime of increased damage. Luster already power crept all other scion classes in classic and those classes were much more powerful than anything we currently have in NGS.

There's no way that Luster as a class would make it into NGS without heavy changes.

@Riesz said in Personal shop prices are way to high:

@Knight-Raime said in Personal shop prices are way to high:

I don't know why you keep mentioning a year when they have told us expansions drop about every 6-8 months as there target.

What? I mean the entire year they made a roadmap for, yeah they covered a little for the next year too, but they decided already that this was enough to last this year by creating the roadmap and deciding this was enough for this year by pretty much saying they'll only do what was on the roadmap.

If that's what you're going off it seems a bit premature to hinge the content argument on it when we don't have a really good picture of what the entire December update will have.

@Riesz said in Personal shop prices are way to high:

@Knight-Raime said in Personal shop prices are way to high:

@Riesz

I'm pretty sure companies have people who actually math out what is and isn't good investment wise. If burning games in the short term wasn't profitable at all then it wouldn't be standard practice.

Yes I would believe that's the case with most competent companies. But considering how much of a bomb they dropped with NGS all around especially with it's initial launch, I'm not quite sure if anyone on their team regarding NGS thought anything through in any department. Like think about this, the department that handles the money stuff probably had to approve their decision to use the Microsoft Azure servers NGS uses for Global, that still have bad hiccups at times to this day.

Well considering they flat out admitted part of the reason launch was so laggy was because of back end data they were gathering for a future system I don't think it has anything to do with Microsoft's servers being bad. There are other games that use these servers just fine. I'm also more than sure they were aware they were pushing a game out that wasn't ready yet. It was a calculated risk to them considering the amount of hype behind the brand and NGS had gathered just from marketing.

There's some new stuff that's good, and updated graphics, but I feel like overall what we got so far is a downgrade of even how PSO2 first launched in Japan, not much content similarly to NGS, but with a much more planned out release, with them knowing they would be adding more stuff over the upcoming months and years, not just lol this is all we planned for content the whole year, have fun with that.

I'm sure they probably believed that keeping classic tied to and not having it's servers shut down once NGS dropped was part of the consideration for what the first 6-8 months would look like. We could've very easily been looking at a different situation if NGS launched entirely seperately and forced everyone to start from scratch. The decision to keep classic involved IMO was the correct one even if it brought negatives to the table. And i'm sure that's more than apparent to the people who made the choice.

The fact that people had to tell them that the content they had wasn't enough speaks volumes to how badly they planned everything out for this game. It's not that they were releasing content slowly, they thought what they released was completely fine to last an entire year, and purposely released that amount of content, thinking it was perfectly fine until they got a massive plethora of feedback about how it isn't enough.

I really don't think we needed to tell them the content on offer wasn't enough. I don't know why you keep mentioning a year when they have told us expansions drop about every 6-8 months as there target. If we put that into context of what we have then yeah, it seems more reasonable. They've also told us that they don't mind people dipping out during lulls of content. The director? of FF14 once said they don't want their MMO to be a job for people and they are also perfectly fine with people taking breaks and playing other things. I don't think and have never thought that NGS's problem is lack of content. Even if we had repeatable quests and UQ's like I want that still wouldn't solve NGS in it's entirety. It's problems are much deeper than just things to do.

That will not change till tail end of next year if we're lucky. The survey they gave us to do wasn't to inform them of problems they weren't aware of, it was to give them more digestable feedback in the way of targeted topics that way post december updates they know where to work on in terms of priority.

I want the game to succeed, and I'm sad how much they butchered the release of NGS, I'm not saying this just to be argumentative or anything, I think they just have incompetent people all around handling NGS, and someone needs to give them a good smack on the head so they wake up. and don't need to be told by thousands, maybe even millions of people when something that should be blaringly obvious as not the right way to do things, is the way they decide to do them.

I don't think it has anything to do with incompetence, sure it's entirely possible that a company just doesn't know what to do with it's successful franchise but more likely what causes "bad" games is people who have money effecting things they should have no say in. This is how we've ended up with so many live service titles and how things like loot boxes came to be widespread. It's money that has also ruined franchises like Ghost recon because they chase "popularity" and think if they slap it into their series it'll get them the big bucks too.

I don't think anyone realistically needs to worry about NGS failing and getting cut off from new content early to be shut down soon after. We're not dealing with EA who actively kills off anything that doesn't give an immediate return. PSO2 specifically has far too much importance to SEGA. They will take drastic efforts to appease our complaints before giving up. This is why we got the changes we asked for in classic instead of just everyone moving to hero. They gave us a real survey this time and it's express purpose is to help improve the game down the line as some of these things would require system changes. It's too early imo to consider NGS a failure or even dead. It seems more appropriate for that doomer talk to happen end of next year.

@Riesz

I'm pretty sure companies have people who actually math out what is and isn't good investment wise. If burning games in the short term wasn't profitable at all then it wouldn't be standard practice.

NGS is a pretty good symbol of corporate greed. It's a game that has debatable improvements over classic. But it's basically a reboot of the brand because the brand itself is one of their biggest ventures from a profit standpoint. There's literally no reason the game became less friendly to F2P compared to classic besides them squeezing people for more cash in the short term. There's no other reason that they went to such great lengths to link the two games despite nearly costing them in the launch period besides convincing people to buy into the "new" experience.

The numbers I chose are just random one's thrown out. My point was and is that people who are going to drop an obscene amount of money in almost pretty much any instance are far more valuable in a companies eyes than building a system that will "eventually" give them returns through creating a healthy and sustainable system that treats all players equally. The fact is people especially in an age of over saturation of free to play models are very weary of spending any kind of money. Why would a company invest in people who likely won't spend very much in the 3-4 years of the game's given life span when they can easily bank off of people who will spend money no matter what? The $90USD price tag for motions is a very good example of this.

Motions are the new shiny. people are regularly dropping that much or more if they're someone who likes to play the market per scratch ticket that includes them. The people who constantly drop that kind of money are emprically more valuable from a return in investment standpoint than someone like you or I who will "maybe" drop $20-40 on a scratch if we like most of what is in it. There's just not enough people out there to make up the difference spending wise versus whales. As long as people are willing to burn cash in gross amounts we're not going to get more user friendly systems. But hey, if you really believe otherwise perhaps further your education and become a mathematician and self publish a strongly supported thesis that proves long term investment is the right way to go with live service games.

Class skills. There's no way what they showed us so far is it.

@Weirdo

Unfortunately i'll have to disagree. Businesses don't really care if they could "potentially" scoop say 1000 players who spend $50 USD. If they could get 10 whales to drop $300 or even 5 whales to drop $1000 on a few scratches it's going to be more worth it to them in the short term.

I used to believe in a friendly system would create and foster long term investment for many players. But there's no real reason a company would make that gamble for breaking even in a few years time when they would be more than likely to get a return in investment if they gouge the hell out of people who burn money like it's nothing to them. As long as people are willing to drop ungodly amounts of cash to get something they really want you're not going to have many companies looking for making long term investments with players.

Much easier for them to wring people dry in the first 6-8 months of a game before bending a tad to get fence sitters than it would be for them to create something healthy for the fans.