sevenpsych
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by sevenpsych
-
-
That's mass effect though...this is Star Wars. It's a different universe. Why is it such an issue to have same sex romances?
Now before you get all huffy puffy and defensive, why do people get so pissed if they don't put them in? I never got that...and I know just because I don't get it doesn't mean others don't either
I'm just curious as to why some people are very VERY vocal about this. Thankyou
Think of it from a different standpoint. What if all the relationships in the game were gay only?
-
I'm sorry, you lost me there.
And as a side question, to paraphrase the Utapau leader in RotS, "What brings you to our remote forum thread?"
I can't help but notice that you have not posted before, nor elsewhere. What drew your attention to this issue, to the extent that you felt inclined to comment?
Was out looking for organized 1.2 information (lots and lots of rumor...) Q&A doesn't give any info leading to such, but I noticed the most passive aggressive posts were in regards to this topic, and multiple re-directs got me here.
but I also wondered why it had not been implemented, seems there is no such thing as info
-
If a restaurant I'd been going to for >10 years, loved the food...
I would simply reply EA ate your restaurant.
"Your favorite restaurant, now brought to you by McDonalds"
I'm a fan of Bioware...
-
Since the level of action on BioWare's side is nothing
So I do see merit in my approach. But it does seem to frustrate those who feel that any attention given to same-gender content is attention that ought to have been spent on the content they care about, instead.
And the same thing can be said for any individual who doesn't feel their priorities have been mentioned. I do wish you luck, though I am doubtful of the efficacy of the counting
-
If that were so, I would demand that the next 20 romance-option companions we get be exclusively homosexual. I'm guessing that would take about three expansion packs or so?
And I think that would upset the "companion purists" a bit more, when they are deprived of the options instead of just having to share theirs. Not to mention having no new content for their relationships for the next few years. But hey, future content is coming on that; it's been confirmed. So they can just sit and wait quietly while I get my content first. (Note; Read this with heavy sarcasm.)
But you know what? Forcing me to share all of my future romance options as bisexuals while there are exclusively heterosexual companions? That is a very one-sided relationship. The only two options as far as I'm concerned are;
A) Hero-sexual companions, including current ones. Let the players decide who they wish to romance.
B) Seperate but equal. Currently there are 20 hetero-romances. That means we'd need another 20 characters that are restricted to homosexual relationships. And then on top of that, they could add several bisexual romances.
See which one is easier?
I think there should be many more romance options, I think that you have a valid point about equal numbers of each, though personally if there were 2 gay options for every 1 straight, I would still consider the straight options pretty well covered. Though I also think
that making this a pure apples to apples comparison is unnecessary unless you want to go down the line of how many of each race... gender... body type... voice... etc. are represented.
-
Heh. As much as I want to argue with you on that statement...I will concede that it does contain an unpleasant grain of truthiness.
And though I have, in effect, walked out (by cancelling my sub and filling out the exit survey), I still think that businesses who continue to ignore their customers deserve to be constantly pressured until said customers are no longer being ignored. I'm not disputing that pressuring them may possibly end up being ineffective. But it is certainly no less effective than remaining silent.
I suppose its just a small difference in philosophy. /shrug
Can you imagine dining at a restaurant run like an MMORPG? Oye! You'd choke on the first bite... if it wasn't deadly poison to boot. When you called 911, they would ask you how far down your throat you think you are choking, and whether its important enough to breath to send an email to their customer service, where perhaps just reading the FAQ would fix the problem.
-
Which is why there have been many systems proposed by people in this thread for allowing a replay of the companion conversations so that you could make it so you -didn't- miss out on decisions.
I just don't like that idea honestly, because I made that decision already, I have done that part of the game. It feels... dirty for lack of a better word, to go back in a role playing game and alter what I did. IMHO
-
*You've been waiting over an hour for your food restaurant. Your server refuses to update you on the situation. Well, sit tight. Your sever doesn't owe you any explanations. Your food will be here when its ready.
You walk out, you don't wait past closing time for an answer.
*You encountered a piece of slightly damaged merchandise at a department store, and the clerk has gone to consult with their manager about whether or not the store can give you a discount due to the damage. This information will influence your decision to purchase or not to purchase. The clerk has been gone for an hour. Sure, he said he'd be back, but the wait is becoming a bit lengthy for your taste. Well, buck up. That clerk doesn't owe you anything. You just wait there quietly until he returns, and by no means should you ask anyone else to check on the situation.
You walk out, bad customer service is bad, you want to buy a product that you may never get support on?
*You had to choose between a satellite television service or cable. You chose the cable company because they told you that a channel you really wanted would be included in their lineup "soon". Since then, every time you call your cable company for an update, the customer service reps don't have any information for you and their managers absolutely refuse to talk to you. You're paying a monthly fee for this service, but you have no right to expect any answers. The company taking your money doesn't owe you anything.
You leave their service, or call the BBB for false advertising.
Okay, that's enough. Do you see where I'm going with these examples? We absolutely should be asking questions here, and we have every right to think we deserve an answer.
I do, and where I differ is how much time I would waste asking before I left, instead of bashing my head against the metaphorical wall that is a poorly integrated customer service team.
I wouldn't sit back down with that same server and still expect an answer, you may deserve one, but its naive to expect one.
-
Uh, when people say "all companions" it's short for "all currently romanceable companions", generally. I know some people might also be asking for additional current companions, but by and large we're merely asking to have those companions everyone else already has.
And as I've said many times before, personality and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other. If a companion can be in love with different species and different body types then making a case that the sexual orientation of that character - whose purpose it is to be a romantic foil - is immutable when it comes to gender seems rather ill-advised.
Not that I couldn't point to about five people who'd really want Zenith to be an option, generally speaking. It depends on the character if future content will change their status, but there is nothing stopping them from making currently romanceable companions available to everyone.
I do understand, tongue in cheek about the droids. Tthough I do not see all romantic options as simply being blanket options for all, if we were to have the romantic foils changed in some patch to allow for SGRA, then all my options that previously may have presented a different character to me are now changed. Someone who may not have been receptive to my character before is all of a sudden an option, that changes the story for me, it changes my view of that character and mine.
I personally don't want the characters in the game to change, because I already have a view of them from my play through. Having that change makes it so I never had the option and i may have taken that option at the time,, and I wouldn't want to post-game go back and alter my character's romance choice or even have the option because it undermines the decisions that i already had to make.
Personally I'd just prefer more companions available who may be gay, straight, bi, or whatever floats their boat. Heck, make the number of options limitless, but don't mess with what I already did make for decisions or make it so i just missed out on decisions.
-
Self inflammatory? I'm sorry - could you rephrase that? I don't know what you mean.
I think it just leads to more frustration on the part of those most involved, not more action on Bioware's side.
How is it counterproductive to count? So far, it seems to have encouraged more activity in the Q&A thread. I'm curious to see how much response the situation is getting.
Arguably if the ends justify the means, having more activity resulting in more responses could be valid. So far it has not been the case. so I would say again it just leads to more internalized frustrations with a lack of answering while lending credibility to the idea that the more vocal the more valid the want.
Do you mean counterproductive in that more visibility in the Q&A thread inevitable leads to more trolling here? Could you be more specific?
I had not considered that, but i don't think that negative feedback from single community members is necessarily anything more than a side effect of having any opinion at all. Though I can imagine it can be annoying and distracting to the overall cause.
The point is not to request implementation, but information - while demonstrating widespread interest.
My point is that some of the information being requested, some of it just in at least the way it is requested, is impossible, or unreasonable. There are questions as so "when," such as weeks, months etc. 1.2 doesn't have a date yet if I'm not mistaken. Specific game features that have not yet been mentioned even in line with 1.2, I consider impossible to answer.
Also in line again with the fact that any dev team that is working on something that is most likely backburner or at least not aimed for implementation in 1.2 (for whatever reason) may not have time estimations that could be released with any degree of certainty, or even any updates on how it may be implemented.
From what I've seen quoted by people in this thread by members of Bioware, it sounds to me like they are going to release SGRA in expansions. Not in any 1.x release.
-
This is why I'm really strongly in favour of making current companions open for SGRAs; even if they did add a new gay option to go along with each straight one, there's no guarantee that they'll be the sort my character would be interested in. Much better to make all companions, new and old, potential romances for everyone, and give us all more scope to express who our characters are. Ultimately, restricting romances by orientation deprives everyone of choice; someone playing a straight character who wants to romance the gay-only NPC is going to be just as unhappy as I was when my male Warrior encountered Quinn, and got all that flirty, suggestive dialogue he couldn't respond to.
I would say I'd prefer the original companions to remain the same. Add new ones in for replays. Do a Mass Effect style choice where you get to pick a companion or two that meshes for you. Going back and making say... Khem Val a romance option would completely change my view of what his character was. So would blanket assigning all companions an SGRA option... especially the droids.
-
In the comments on the decision at the time, that marginalization is clear: "Over time we can get to add things that are exciting and interesting to smaller audiences," but "The vast majority of our content will be of interest to the vast majority of our potential audience."
Whoever wrote that in response or formulated it for the response should never work in public relations or customer service. I can only hope that is not indicative of the actual attitude of those in control of development and design. As it is probably one of the few times it was mentioned in the manner and there has been no mention of it in detail since, I can understand the frustration and feeling of marginalization.
I personally choose to continue to believe that it is a backwards customer service / PR team, and not a game planning and development team that made a wholly erroneous decision to believe that such content is only interesting to a "small audience." Knowing where these decisions actually got made would be the important part to realizing whether it is truly marginalization, or an ugly development oversight coupled with an Exec or someone else who knows exactly how to say the wrong thing.
-
Oh, I agree, but "catering to the gays" is how the detractors often see it, I think. But we've certainly had plenty of straight people come in and say that they'd play same-gender romance content; character orientation and player orientation definitely don't have to coincide. I'm gay myself, and play a couple of straight characters; I'll also play bi characters, and gay characters not of my gender when I can.
I'm actually pretty curious how many people play characters who romance a gender they're not personally attracted to; you've got the stereotypical straight guys playing lesbians, of course, but how many of them will play gay men, or straight women, for instance?
I generally play female characters, I'm a straight male. I play them as straight, or gay. I've never played a gay male, except in the Sims, it doesn't appeal to me as much.
My girlfriend seems to make decisions on who she gets along with based on who is most submissive to her in game... I don't think she makes gender/sexuality biased decisions, more just dominance decisions lol, and her relationships in games reflect that.
-
And, further, that they have not been. Correct?
Sadly, very correct. The game suffers for lack of it. I in fact played through my first two times thinking I just missed it before I came to the forums to find it had simply never been included.
In that respect, it is as much about telling the Developers something they ought to know as anything else.
What is it about a running tally that upsets you so much? Is it because it does in fact make it impossible to overlook or minimize the importance of same-gender content to some players?
The running tally seems moot and self inflammatory. That's all. Not upset by it in anyway, only feel its counterproductive to put any effort into counting. Though I do agree constant requests for the feature are important until it is implemented.
I simply do not see it as marginalization. I simply stand at odds with that opinion which seems to be held by a number of SGRA. I'm far more willing to believe it is poor feelings due to poor handling, where malice need not be implied.
-
Not so much hiding away opinions as the fact that they plan to cater to gay customers. Which is rather surprising, coming from Bioware, and rather pointless, given that they've already said the content is going to be in. If it really is currently in development, they need to say so to everyone, not just people who email in.
I don't think this is catering to gay customers, I think this issue caters to anyone who wants a better RPG aspect for the game in general. As I stated above, if you are going to make romance options in a game, you better include -ALL- of them.
Its just proper design in general, at least thats how I feel.
-
If you really want to make the leap of logic that goes from "they aren't talking about it" to "they haven't even thought about development yet" I can't stop you. Quite a few people have done so in this thread out of frustration and in the absence of any new information. Some of them have already left the game, maybe for good.
.
I'm getting exhausted trying to parse posts to quote. I'm going to just reply in summary, I think when you decide to implement a game with romance options, ALL options should be explored and implemented. I think we can agree on that.
I don't think its a leap in logic to assume that there are a multitude of scenarios that could easily arise behind the scenes that would keep information from being publicly available. I do not choose to assume that the group requesting SGRA is being marginalized, or that it is not in development, or that it is being ignored. I choose to say, its simply not being addressed.
"Why not? When will anyone know?" These are impossible questions I choose to take issue with, and recommend they not bother being asked.
That and what seems to be the idea (amongst some who post, or at least imply with their posts) that the number of times an issue is mentioned makes it relevant or should be kept track of.
-
Oh, I'm sure they choose which questions they answer in the Q&A based upon what they want to answer already.
Thing is, some people have received emails in response to concerns they've raised with customer service which suggest this content is currently in development; it's absolutely ludicrous if that's the case and they're simply not responding publicly in order to avoid controversy. Beyond the impression someone mentioned earlier that they do see us as something to be ashamed of/keep hidden away, it is absolutely not something that should be our job as customers, to each enquire one at a time and be updated by email if we want first-hand information.
Emails handled by customer service that are not in line or in conjunction with additional public statements to me implies a poor customer service team, or a lack of common talking points amongst all CS.
Bad customer service or crossed wires somewhere would be the least surprising thing ever in the history of customer service.
Hiding opinions away doesn't seem to be something they are making any effort at, as its quite obvious when you read the forums and the Q&A's which features are being requested.
-
Seriously? You honestly think it's not realistic to expect them to clarify something they said five months ago? To provide ANY further information?
So in essence, you think people should just drop the issue entirely, I take it? That's a more "realistic" thing to do?
Yes, I think after 5 months of being ignored, Bioware or their customer service representatives have made it quite clear, they aren't approaching the matter further until they deem it possible or necessary. This is their prerogative, no matter how many times it is asked in Q&A. I would say logically that continuing to request the feature makes sense until implementation, but to belabor previous statements is not going to get anyone anywhere with a dev team who just released a massive MMO.
-
Overlooking, of course, the mistake of implementing only opposite-gender content at launch, rather than waiting until it all was ready to go, that is.
In fact, they didn't say "soon after launch". A quick refresher of the September Announcement, and Mr. Reid's comments on this at the time:
So if anything, the announcement was of content "far ahead". How far, of course, is anyone's guess.
It is not unreasonable to want an update. A statement given to a pre-launch audience of prospective future customers is less than helpful to an audience of post-launch paying customers playing the game as it stands.
I agree, it was a mistake, it should've been a priority as soon as you decide to implement any sort of courting scenario.
I would expect the quotes above to lead the reader to believe an expansion will include the SGRA features though, as they were specific to mention expansions.
-
My point is, it's poor customer service to leave us this long without a substantive update on when and what we might expect, in relation to something that was promised months ago and then had every question regarding it ignored by the developers.
And sure, they don't have to answer us. But they're answering other questions. They're putting in content that wasn't promised pre-launch. Is it really any surprise that I'm not exactly thrilled with their handling of the matter? This is not the optimal way to encourage repeat business.
True, through and through. They should not have answered any questions as far as SGRA unless they were going to properly support that answer with followups.
This is not to say that the answers that have been given in Q&A were not already in development before the questions came from the community, or that new content was not being developed even before the SGRA issue. You and I have a specific lack of information being that we are not in the planning/dev team for bioware.
-
Pretty sure a customer who bought a product on the understanding that there would be something they required added later on has a perfect right to enquire as to timescales. And what, precisely, that something was likely to be, if that knowledge affects their current use of the product.
We were told "post-launch". It's post-launch. Time for another update.
Every day after launch is post launch.
They have every right to inquire... not necessarily to be answered though.
-
If they truly have made no plans for SGRA content since September -- after stating it would be included "soon" -- it seems like a very poorly judged statement for them to have made at that time. And given how finely manicured statements about future content tend to be, I personally find that unlikely.
We haven't gotten a "TBD" on this matter since September. We haven't gotten anything. You are suggesting taking a different tactic than asking -- what would that be? Because you seem to be suggesting doing nothing and hoping someone notices.
Now THAT is true. Any statement of timeline in something that is not already done and in the next patch is a poorly planned statement. Legacy levels and information on it has been far more fleshed out though remains hugely vague, and that is labeled as being soon -in the game- not just in dev posts.
Bioware has been poorly communicating with those who are SGRA, their first mistake was making any allusion to time of implementation. Fixing it would not be making another statement relating to ETA, but in fact just releasing it.
The information you are looking for as far as how its going to be implemented, may as well be up to your imagination, because it's highly doubtful that its been in development, or even to a point where its solid enough to be released from a planning stage alone to the public. If they released weak information again, and you all went picking characters, then it fell through... its just another problem.
Letting you flounder without information until it is actually going into a testing phase, at least leaves them with the only real mistake of saying it would be "soon."
-
I don't want it to be a matter of 'if'....
...I want it to be a matter of 'when'.
And the question of when should never be answered by any Dev team no matter what the issue or the project except to their bosses.
The question of if should only be answered when it becomes a priority or a possibility to conclude an answer to it, which if they haven't decided to implement, or when they will attempt to design and then implement... then you don't get either answer.
-
Here is you in the Q&A thread, complaining that the largest crowd was not answered...
"SGRA crowd, the biggest crowd in the last Q&A thread, has been ignored completely, again, I see."
Thats passive aggressive, and exactly my point.
I don't lack understanding of what you want, just how you choose to go about illustrating your wishes.
And here's the response you should and will get everytime you ASK for information about something that must be developed. "TBA" or "TBD" Nothing more.
Healing in PvP is Overpowered Because You Nerfed Damage
in PvP
Posted
Hybrid sorc here... 0/16/25
In relation to pugs...
Its kind of funny, but 400k+ damage and ~200k healing is easy enough in void star -without- the spec into heals...
and that 400k+ is because I'm dpsing healers and their adjacent brute squad.
Of course that 200k heals is just keeping my butt upright against grav/tracer/lightning/force spam, not my team. My team is screwed if I have to main heal.
Point being, the numbers can lie about the effect an individual has on the outcome of a game.
People rely too heavily on burst damage, pick better targets and start making premades with people who mark and focus fire the healers, not everyone in any given WZ can heal forever.
You just have to team up and kill the one or two who can in any given PUG.