juliushorst Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Step 1: Which Group Are You In? GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without itGROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want itGROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game* Group 3: joined the game March 2016, subscribed from day 1, sub ever since. Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)? (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story © Both Access to Story and Companion (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things C: I don't care that much about HK himself because a clone is obtainable in another way. Story is most important for me. Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)? (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b) (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed C: do either a. or b. or even do both if it makes people happy. Option a. actually benefits everybody so I think it's the best if they go with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu_Wanderfalke Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Step 1: Which Group Are You In? GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without itGROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want itGROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game* If you're in Group 2 or 3, proceed to Step 2. Group 1, should skip to step 3. *Group 4, see paragraph at the end. Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)? (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story © Both Access to Story and Companion (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)? (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b) (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed Step 3 is for Group 1 only. Step 3: What Is Your Position (and why)? (a) In favor of Access to Story/opposed to Access to Companion (b) In favor of Access to Companion/opposed to Access to Story © In favor of both Access to Companion and Story (d) Opposed to both Access to Companion and Story Step 3A: What Can Change Your Opinion/What's Your Compromise (and why)? (a) If I get the option for new/different rewards with any re-opening of the promotion (b) If the new content is gated behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate © I'd be cool with both, or either, of (a) and (b) (d) It cannot be changed; I'm dug in Special Case of Group 4 This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only. Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway... EDITED TO ADD: just in case it isn't obvious, I didn't include the group of people who were around, could have subbed during the event, and made a conscious choice not to. IMO, they don't belong anywhere on the framework at all. But to avoid confusion, I'm making this explicit now. Group 3 (Actually I'm a returning player from WAY before KOTFE, actually even from before Makeb, but have played through all the new story content since then with my main and soon also with my twink) c c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I'm not sure what you read, or what you're responding to. But it's not the post I made. The 'clutter' is that there are numerous "generic" arguments of contract breach, ToS, ethics, fairness, etc. being made. Some are strong, others not so much. The debate is now muddled. But by generic, I mean the ones that are not tied to someone actually harmed by this. In other words, those arguments that anyone can make - even non subs, non-players, and space aliens:D. And no one is saying that there is no place anywhere for generic arguments. It's just that this thread it getting cluttered with arguments that are all over the place from people who have no greater interest here than the space alien. What I have attempted to do is clean up the debate a bit by prioritizing arguments from people who are actually (or potentially if there is a change) harmed by this: a) people who subbed in reliance on this being one-time only and b) people who missed out and now want the rewards (to be clear, for now, I didn't explicitly include people who could have done the promo but chose not to at the time either). The idea is to percolate the arguments from the "harmed" groups up to the top of the debate where they belong. All other groups don't have an argument that's based on harm, and IMO in this framework, their arguments (which include my own arguments) should be heavily discounted (which is what the algorithm tries to do)... This assumes that you're some kind of authority on what harmed those posters, so on what authority do you get to decide that? I'd say that anyone, on either side, posting here has concerns that they feel are legitimate, whether I agree or not, their viewpoint is valid, at least to them, how I see it may vary widely from how they see it, but they believe it's a legit concern. You don't have the authority to claim "well, we're going to throw these arguments out because I don't think they're valid". This is what I'm reacting to. Despite how vehemently I believe BW should be held to their word on this, and how much I despise the handwringing about it, I'd much rather argue all the points than to just claim some kind of moral authority to dismiss them out of hand, which is exactly what you've done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonbeams Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 This assumes that you're some kind of authority on what harmed those posters, so on what authority do you get to decide that? I'd say that anyone, on either side, posting here has concerns that they feel are legitimate, whether I agree or not, their viewpoint is valid, at least to them, how I see it may vary widely from how they see it, but they believe it's a legit concern. You don't have the authority to claim "well, we're going to throw these arguments out because I don't think they're valid". This is what I'm reacting to. Despite how vehemently I believe BW should be held to their word on this, and how much I despise the handwringing about it, I'd much rather argue all the points than to just claim some kind of moral authority to dismiss them out of hand, which is exactly what you've done. I think you need to calm down a bit. I get this is an emotional topic. But I'm not claiming some superior, moral authority here. I think in algorithms--that's how my mind works. This all looked disorganized to me, which made it hard to follow the arguments. So I proposed a framework that is (tries to be) objective. It has one core assumption, which is that "harm" is the right filtering metric. And if that's accepted as the filter, then everything else I laid out flows logically -- no opinion, no moral authority other than logic. But maybe "harm" isn't the right filter. I'm open to other filtering metrics as well. Feel free to propose them. I posted in response to a request from the OP to organize the debate: And we are off topic again for the sake of arguing. Guys, this back and forth where you are just repeating yourselves is getting really old and really boring. You may as well be copying and pasting your previous reply’s and opinions. Please add some better quality to this conversation But we can also continue with an open, unfiltered, disorganized, free-for-all. That's up to you. I can't force anyone to do what they don't want to do (and didn't try to). But I don't (personally) think that will be helpful to anyone, and especially so if the goal is to be persuasive and get the devs to pay attention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu_Wanderfalke Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 and how much I despise the handwringing about it, Funny, considering you are one of those who do most of the wringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlBuzzard Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Interesting conversation. I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this. The following algorithm is the one I'm applying here. IMHO, it will be helpful for others and BW if the algorithm is applied to responses so there can be some clarity as to where the weight of the debate really is. Also, I’ll deal with the special case of "Group 4" at the end. But until then, if you would have subbed anyway, there is no reason at all whatsoever for anyone to factor in your opinion here. (For the record, I’m in this camp). I cannot emphasize this enough – you have no legit basis whatsoever to state a grievance here, since you have not and will not suffer any harm from any decision here. (Except maybe group 4 below, which is a special case for the end). Step 1: Which Group Are You In? GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without itGROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want itGROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game* If you're in Group 2 or 3, proceed to Step 2. Group 1, should skip to step 3. *Group 4, see paragraph at the end. Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)? (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story © Both Access to Story and Companion (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)? (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b) (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed Step 3 is for Group 1 only. Step 3: What Is Your Position (and why)? (a) In favor of Access to Story/opposed to Access to Companion (b) In favor of Access to Companion/opposed to Access to Story © In favor of both Access to Companion and Story (d) Opposed to both Access to Companion and Story Step 3A: What Can Change Your Opinion/What's Your Compromise (and why)? (a) If I get the option for new/different rewards with any re-opening of the promotion (b) If the new content is gated behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate © I'd be cool with both, or either, of (a) and (b) (d) It cannot be changed; I'm dug in Special Case of Group 4 This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only. Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway... EDITED TO ADD: just in case it isn't obvious, I didn't include the group of people who were around, could have subbed during the event, and made a conscious choice not to. IMO, they don't belong anywhere on the framework at all. But to avoid confusion, I'm making this explicit now. Ah... here we are .. Had to dig a bit to locate this response : This is unquestionably one of the most comprehensive and well stated analysis I've seen. Well done ! Well organized. There is only one small point where we differ. Perhaps it was your intent that maybe our opinion either fit into one of these groups .... or perhaps it was not revelant. I will try to add this to the mix in light of your presentation. 1. I was already subbed. and would have any way (I think that's on your list)... 2. I do feel that it is important to see how those who were in game (subbed) feel about the availablilty of "missed opportunities" for other players. 3. There is and always be problems, excuses (many very legitimate) as to why people miss stuff. 4. ANOTHER question that COULD AND SHOULD be reviewed might be " what were the original terms / conditions / basis for the original release?" In this case I belive VERY strongly that it was centered around the length of time that someone was on board as "subscribed" (From month X to monty Y ). Was that 6 or 7 months (frankly I forget). IMO: again... IMO ... Making the HK-55 unit and its contient available for a similar period of time or for those who have obviously been subbed since then (new comers who have been subbed for at least the 6 or 7 month duration ) should be considered as a qualified customer and have the HK unit made available. Please note: I honestly believe that this is same spirit that you have presented your post. If you dissagree ... then that's cool ! I totally respect how you have throughly presented yours... well done ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I think you need to calm down a bit. I get this is an emotional topic. But I'm not claiming some superior, moral authority here. I think in algorithms--that's how my mind works. This all looked disorganized to me, which made it hard to follow the arguments. So I proposed a framework that is (tries to be) objective. It has one core assumption, which is that "harm" is the right filtering metric. And if that's accepted as the filter, then everything else I laid out flows logically -- no opinion, no moral authority other than logic. But maybe "harm" isn't the right filter. I'm open to other filtering metrics as well. Feel free to propose them. I posted in response to a request from the OP to organize the debate: But we can also continue with an open, unfiltered, disorganized, free-for-all. That's up to you. I can't force anyone to do what they don't want to do (and didn't try to). But I don't (personally) think that will be helpful to anyone, and especially so if the goal is to be persuasive and get the devs to pay attention... I'm really pretty calm. You dismissed the opinion of posters in this thread because you don't understand them, but I'm just supposed to what, Netflix and Chill? Let me guess, you're dismissing them "for their own good", which is why you suggest that, despite asking for this feedback, BW needs to ignore them? I think it's you that needs to calm down, step back, and quit trying to dismiss things that you don't understand, or don't like, out of hand as "meaningless to BW". They didn't ask "everyone that agrees with this proposition chime in, and if you're opposed shut up". They asked for feedback, so unless you've become a forum moderator, and can just delete "inconvenient" posts, stop trying to dismiss what they are trying to convey. BW asked for the feedback right here. This conversation is certainly timely as it is a topic we have been revisiting internally as well. We have been actively talking about how, when, and if it would be possible to get make the HK chapter available again in some form. Whether that is a sub reward, sold on the market, etc. Here is the thing we are trying to be sensitive to. Individuals who have it right now subbed for a number of months to get it and so if/when we bring it back, we need to make sure that we do it in a way that is fair to what they went through to get it. Ex: if it was a sub reward it would likely require multiple months of sub, or, if it was in the market it would be sold for a premium. There is a lot of sensitivity on both sides. We agree that we would love to have a way for players who don't have it to get it (since it is story content, afterall). But it has to be done in a way that is fair to those who already have it. Let us know your thoughts (for, or against) and I can make sure all of your feedback is captured in our on-going discussion. As a note I won't likely have an update on this in the short-tem, but as soon as I have any details I will pass them on. -eric Note the part I bolded here? He didn't ask for one side, he asked for all feedback, whether specific posters like it, or can understand it, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuinlanSaathis Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I thought we already agreed that I would be happy if you and everybody else who already have the chapter should got some alternate reward. Even if BW is not legally bound to do such thing, it would be nice and good business practice to do so. The answer is not for you or me. I am trying to reframe my argument since so many people cannot see what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueShiftRecall Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) Also, I’ll deal with the special case of "Group 4" at the end. But until then, if you would have subbed anyway, there is no reason at all whatsoever for anyone to factor in your opinion here. (For the record, I’m in this camp). I cannot emphasize this enough – you have no legit basis whatsoever to state a grievance here, since you have not and will not suffer any harm from any decision here. (Except maybe group 4 below, which is a special case for the end). Played the game and been a sub since Jan 2014 and have always been subbed that entire time but I want to give my opinion anyway. Got the chapter and played it a few times, I haven't done a full run of KOTET/KOTFE in a long time but last time I did do it I honestly skipped that extra HK/ZOOM chapter anyway, first few times I played it I loved it but then it became a matter of if I don't have to then I won't because I want to speed run through the chapters on alts anyway. I'm more than happy for them to release it again, I've had my fun with it so let others enjoy it as well. Honestly I don't care about getting anything more just because I had it the first time either, so many of the sub rewards I've gotten over the years end up forever sitting in my mailbox anyway, with the one exception being the companions which I always open. I love the game and if this chapter being re-released will bring me people back to the game or entice more people to play then I'm all for it. Edited May 17, 2019 by BlueShiftRecall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absolutetristan Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Fair enough, I hated it too and it was probably a bad example as almost no one would want to do that again. Now substitute DvL event for "sub for 6 months" its easy to do and most of us are doing it anyway. Now look at the question, is that fair? I don't want to continue everyone beating a dead horse, so after this, can we agree to disagree. I think our opinions differ. I appreciate your insight. I love seeing varying opinions. Myself, I don't think my opinion is right, yours is wrong. Regardless of what side anyone is on, I don't think anyone is right or wrong. We all have opinions, somethings might be on the same wavelengths, some on completely different spectrums. If we're all going by what we feel, I don't think anyone is right, or wrong. But to answer your question, if the only activity is being subbed and my card being charged, I think it's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonbeams Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 I'm really pretty calm. You dismissed the opinion of posters in this thread because you don't understand them, but I'm just supposed to what, Netflix and Chill? Let me guess, you're dismissing them "for their own good", which is why you suggest that, despite asking for this feedback, BW needs to ignore them? I think it's you that needs to calm down, step back, and quit trying to dismiss things that you don't understand, or don't like, out of hand as "meaningless to BW". They didn't ask "everyone that agrees with this proposition chime in, and if you're opposed shut up". They asked for feedback, so unless you've become a forum moderator, and can just delete "inconvenient" posts, stop trying to dismiss what they are trying to convey. BW asked for the feedback right here. Note the part I bolded here? He didn't ask for one side, he asked for all feedback, whether specific posters like it, or can understand it, or not. I'll try one more time. Then after that, we'll just have to go our separate ways. You continue to think I'm "dismissing" folks and arguments. You continue to look at this personally. It's not personal. As I said in the very passage you quoted, I'm in the group of people who's being "dismissed." I've weighed in strongly on this topic many times in the past (you can check my post history), but for consistency here (and to be helpful), I've silenced even my own "opinion." As I've said many times, I laid out a framework. It's math. In that framework, if you accept the "harm" metric as being a valid filter metric, then everything else follows logically. So when I say that "other opinions should be disregarded", that's not an opinion or personal preference--that flows naturally and logically from the algorithm. It's not personal. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings. I don't actually believe that no one else's opinion (including mine) are valid. But under the framework, they logically have to be disregarded--there's no choice here, it's math (and note: not entirely eliminated. If you see group 4, the framework allows for these opinions, under the same "harm" metric--but in this case, it's a "general" harm to the game, and in a discounted way). I'm actually glad you posted Eric's post. You highlighted some parts. Let me do the same. This conversation is certainly timely as it is a topic we have been revisiting internally as well. We have been actively talking about how, when, and if it would be possible to get make the HK chapter available again in some form. Whether that is a sub reward, sold on the market, etc. Here is the thing we are trying to be sensitive to. Individuals who have it right now subbed for a number of months to get it and so if/when we bring it back, we need to make sure that we do it in a way that is fair to what they went through to get it. Ex: if it was a sub reward it would likely require multiple months of sub, or, if it was in the market it would be sold for a premium. There is a lot of sensitivity on both sides. We agree that we would love to have a way for players who don't have it to get it (since it is story content, afterall). But it has to be done in a way that is fair to those who already have it. Let us know your thoughts (for, or against) and I can make sure all of your feedback is captured in our on-going discussion. As a note I won't likely have an update on this in the short-tem, but as soon as I have any details I will pass them on. -eric We see what we want to see I suppose. What I see here is the team's concern about being "fair". What I see is a real concern from the devs with making sure that people who "subbed for a number of months to get it" are treated fairly. They want to make sure that players who actually "went through" something get fair treatment. And, they're concerned for those on the other side who missed out. I suppose we could read that to be "anyone who would have subbed regardless" and argue this is about "fairness" for them. Or "anyone who intentionally didn't sub, but could have" and argue that the devs are concerned about fairness for that group. Or we could even argue that "anyone, anywhere, even non-players" are who the devs are concerned with hearing from. I suppose all those readings are possible. I just, personally, find them less credible than the reading that's tied to a "fairness" toward those who actually "went through" something they wouldn't have done to get the rewards. And, on the other side, those who couldn't have gotten the rewards because they weren't around (or maybe glitched). So this is where this all comes from. I'm not playing Sith Lord. I'm not just making up stuff that fits my agenda -- I don't have an agenda (though for the record, I advocate for new rewards for previous subs who got this). I'm taking my read of the devs words and the OP and trying to bring some organization to what's become a very cluttered debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlBuzzard Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 [/snip... snip] I'm actually glad you posted Eric's post. You highlighted some parts. Let me do the same. We see what we want to see I suppose. What I see here is the team's concern about being "fair". What I see is a real concern from the devs with making sure that people who "subbed for a number of months to get it" are treated fairly. They want to make sure that players who actually "went through" something get fair treatment. And, they're concerned for those on the other side who missed out. I suppose we could read that to be "anyone who would have subbed regardless" and argue this is about "fairness" for them. Or "anyone who intentionally didn't sub, but could have" and argue that the devs are concerned about fairness for that group. Or we could even argue that "anyone, anywhere, even non-players" are who the devs are concerned with hearing from. I suppose all those readings are possible. I just, personally, find them less credible than the reading that's tied to a "fairness" toward those who actually "went through" something they wouldn't have done to get the rewards. And, on the other side, those who couldn't have gotten the rewards because they weren't around (or maybe glitched). So this is where this all comes from. I'm not playing Sith Lord. I'm not just making up stuff that fits my agenda -- I don't have an agenda (though for the record, I advocate for new rewards for previous subs who got this). I'm taking my read of the devs words and the OP and trying to bring some organization to what's become a very cluttered debate... On this we can agree. That was pretty much where I drew my conclusion as well. With that purpose in mind it is largely in the hands of BW... But as Eric clearly stated they understand the overall scope of the matter. I am VERY glad that you entered into this discussion ! Well done !! [/two thumbs up emote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) I'll try one more time. Then after that, we'll just have to go our separate ways. You continue to think I'm "dismissing" folks and arguments. You continue to look at this personally. It's not personal. As I said in the very passage you quoted, I'm in the group of people who's being "dismissed." I've weighed in strongly on this topic many times in the past (you can check my post history), but for consistency here (and to be helpful), I've silenced even my own "opinion." As I've said many times, I laid out a framework. It's math. In that framework, if you accept the "harm" metric as being a valid filter metric, then everything else follows logically. So when I say that "other opinions should be disregarded", that's not an opinion or personal preference--that flows naturally and logically from the algorithm. It's not personal. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings. I don't actually believe that no one else's opinion (including mine) are valid. But under the framework, they logically have to be disregarded--there's no choice here, it's math (and note: not entirely eliminated. If you see group 4, the framework allows for these opinions, under the same "harm" metric--but in this case, it's a "general" harm to the game, and in a discounted way). I'm actually glad you posted Eric's post. You highlighted some parts. Let me do the same. We see what we want to see I suppose. What I see here is the team's concern about being "fair". What I see is a real concern from the devs with making sure that people who "subbed for a number of months to get it" are treated fairly. They want to make sure that players who actually "went through" something get fair treatment. And, they're concerned for those on the other side who missed out. I suppose we could read that to be "anyone who would have subbed regardless" and argue this is about "fairness" for them. Or "anyone who intentionally didn't sub, but could have" and argue that the devs are concerned about fairness for that group. Or we could even argue that "anyone, anywhere, even non-players" are who the devs are concerned with hearing from. I suppose all those readings are possible. I just, personally, find them less credible than the reading that's tied to a "fairness" toward those who actually "went through" something they wouldn't have done to get the rewards. And, on the other side, those who couldn't have gotten the rewards because they weren't around (or maybe glitched). So this is where this all comes from. I'm not playing Sith Lord. I'm not just making up stuff that fits my agenda -- I don't have an agenda (though for the record, I advocate for new rewards for previous subs who got this). I'm taking my read of the devs words and the OP and trying to bring some organization to what's become a very cluttered debate... When you say "BW needs to ignore x", you're dismissing people's opinions on the matter. Do I need to post a definition of ignore? Because what I see when I see someone say "BW needs to ignore these positions" is someone trying to de-platform people that aren't toeing their line. Since the dev post specifically says to post your feedback, for or against the idea, any other interpretation of the post is spin. The section I highlighted specifically does just that, so there's no "well, we see what we want to see", it's "well, that's inconvenient, so we'll need to try to dismiss that too". Interesting conversation. I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this. What part of this is covered in "I'll make sure all of your feedback is captured in our ongoing discussion"? Does it say "I'll make sure the feedback that specific posters identify as legit will be forwarded"? Nope, and this is the whole premise of your decluttering right? It doesn't matter how generic you feel an opinion is, the opinion was asked for by the Community Manager, and stating that they need to be disregarded because you think they're generic is in direct opposition of what was actually asked for by the Community Manager. There's a reason they're looking at what's fair, they put a high price on this content initially, 7 months of continuous sub, there was no retroactivity involved, they laid out specific dates. They understand that there will be those that only maintained a sub because of this promotion, and will feel cheated if it's brought back at all, or if it's brought back in some trivial manner, contrary to what they told all of us at the time, so I find it funny that you now want to cling to "fair", all the while trying to dismiss opinions that you find "generic". Edited May 18, 2019 by robertthebard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRKMSN Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) I feel Joonbeams put a lot of thought into that original post and was attempting to simplify the thread and narrow its focus. However, even that post wasn't completely unbiased and definitely contained wording of a persuasive nature that also (even if unintended) proceeded to throw out some opinions here as irrelevant. In fairness, I doubt I could do any better when trying to offer a "middle road." If it's an argument and I have an opinion, it will show in my wording. For the record, I subbed during that time and would have anyway. But I also clearly like exclusive items to be part of a game like this. The ranked PvP rewards have had some things I really liked. Unfortunately for me, I'm a pretty average PvPer. I'm much more valuable, IMO, in an 8v8 warzone than in arenas. So I don't have any of those cool, exclusive items. I'm thankful that Bioware made them anyway for those that earned them (hopefully not from win-trading). I am not entitled to any of those items and I hope they never bring them back once they can no longer be obtained. I feel my opinion matters even though I was part of the "sub anyway" group. Why? Because I am pro-exclusives. I'm not pro-exclusives to lord things over others (as many keep suggesting). I'm pro-exclusives because they enhance the game with real motivation, IMO. It's obvious people disagree which is the purpose of this thread. But my stance is as relevant to me as yours (whatever it may be) is relevant to you. Also ... for the record ... I don't feel this thread was ever being derailed. People are passionate about their opinions. Telling people to take certain opinions somewhere else probably doesn't encourage people to participate at all. Edited May 18, 2019 by BRKMSN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonbeams Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 ... There's a reason they're looking at what's fair, they put a high price on this content initially, 7 months of continuous sub, there was no retroactivity involved, they laid out specific dates. They understand that there will be those that only maintained a sub because of this promotion, and will feel cheated if it's brought back at all, or if it's brought back in some trivial manner, contrary to what they told all of us at the time, so I find it funny that you now want to cling to "fair", all the while trying to dismiss opinions that you find "generic". Agreed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenovade Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 For the record, I subbed during that time and would have anyway. But I also clearly like exclusive items to be part of a game like this. The ranked PvP rewards have had some things I really liked. Unfortunately for me, I'm a pretty average PvPer. I'm much more valuable, IMO, in an 8v8 warzone than in arenas. So I don't have any of those cool, exclusive items. I'm thankful that Bioware made them anyway for those that earned them (hopefully not from win-trading). I am not entitled to any of those items and I hope they never bring them back once they can no longer be obtained. I feel my opinion matters even though I was part of the "sub anyway" group. Why? Because I am pro-exclusives. I'm not pro-exclusives to lord things over others (as many keep suggesting). I'm pro-exclusives because they enhance the game with real motivation, IMO. It's obvious people disagree which is the purpose of this thread. But my stance is as relevant to me as yours (whatever it may be) is relevant to you. Finally! This is the sincere argument you should have been making the whole time. I actually agree with you that exclusives are a good form of motivation and are not necessarily a bad thing to have in the game. The difference for me is I would only apply this to cosmetic items like armor, titles, and mounts...but not companions and certainly not story chapters. No matter how great or small of an extent they relate to the story, the fact that they do is extremely significant in a game built around being story-driven. There are a lot of RPers and lore fanatics who play this game just for that story aspect, and I don't think wanting our in-game experience to match the continuity of the lore is asking too much, especially when we're willing to go through the same, if not more, that others did to obtain it, and because our efforts will go into supporting the game which helps everyone. It's understandable that having unobtainables make you feel good and special, but we don't need to be zealots about it by applying that philosophy to every single promotion or event that happens to come along. It's okay for some rewards to return every once in a while, as many have already, and especially so when they're story-related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRKMSN Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 All my arguments are sincere. They just aren't always appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonbeams Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 I feel Joonbeams put a lot of thought into that original post and was attempting to simplify the thread and narrow its focus. However, even that post wasn't completely unbiased and definitely contained wording of a persuasive nature that also (even if unintended) proceeded to throw out some opinions here as irrelevant. In fairness, I doubt I could do any better when trying to offer a "middle road." If it's an argument and I have an opinion, it will show in my wording. For the record, I subbed during that time and would have anyway. But I also clearly like exclusive items to be part of a game like this. The ranked PvP rewards have had some things I really liked. Unfortunately for me, I'm a pretty average PvPer. I'm much more valuable, IMO, in an 8v8 warzone than in arenas. So I don't have any of those cool, exclusive items. I'm thankful that Bioware made them anyway for those that earned them (hopefully not from win-trading). I am not entitled to any of those items and I hope they never bring them back once they can no longer be obtained. I feel my opinion matters even though I was part of the "sub anyway" group. Why? Because I am pro-exclusives. I'm not pro-exclusives to lord things over others (as many keep suggesting). I'm pro-exclusives because they enhance the game with real motivation, IMO. It's obvious people disagree which is the purpose of this thread. But my stance is as relevant to me as yours (whatever it may be) is relevant to you. Also ... for the record ... I don't feel this thread was ever being derailed. People are passionate about their opinions. Telling people to take certain opinions somewhere else probably doesn't encourage people to participate at all. All fair points. Thanks for posting this. I could have approached this differently I suppose. I realize that frameworks like the one I laid out just inherently aren't comprehensible by some people -- especially if the focus in on the "conclusions" rather than the algorithm itself (which necessarily forces those conclusions). So I guess now is as good a time as any to say again for the record, I AGREE with the points above. I got the rewards. I would have subbed anyway. I've maintained my sub since joining. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the promotion rewards returned willy nilly. I've made this point repeatedly. And so I admit that I have a bias in favor of preserving the exclusivity (never denied it - I've posted on it extensively). I would like to see new rewards for those who subbed. The very arguments I'm being accused of stifling are the ones I personally am most sympathetic too. Still, to be clear, I want others who missed out (in particular those who weren't here or otw couldn't sub during the promo) to also get a chance at these rewards (especially the story part). And I truly don't believe that those who intentionally chose not to sub, should have at shot at these (especially HK). Still, my thinking is (and I won't change my mind on this) that the most persuasive opinions will come from those who subbed intentionally only for the promotion. I truly believe that group will be the one BW factors in the most. So my attempt was to help make sure that group's arguments took the forefront, away from all of the other noise. If I was in charge, I'd be most swayed by those voices (and I think that's outright stated, if not heavily implied by Eric's post). But I'm going to abandon the crusade on this -- the passions are too strong. And if my efforts were unhelpful (regardless of my intent), it's a failure anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 Agreed... Outstanding. I am one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudlar Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 And I truly don't believe that those who intentionally chose not to sub, should have at shot at these (especially HK). Yeah, there were definitely some people here and on Reddit who kept ranting that the chapter would obviously be garbage and anyone who planned to sub through the 7-month period was a chump. I admit to feeling a certain smug satisfaction when it turned out that those people were wrong, and the chapter was lots of fun. If BioWare had made the chapter available again in a few months, or even a year, I would have been pretty annoyed. But it's been almost three years now. Most of those people are probably long gone, and the ones who are still here and subbed are now supporting the game. As I said many pages ago, I'd be fine with current subs getting the chapter and companions without any other prerequisite, but that obviously won't fly for a lot of people. I'll leave it to BioWare to decide what a fair prerequisite would look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRKMSN Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 But I'm going to abandon the crusade on this -- the passions are too strong. And if my efforts were unhelpful (regardless of my intent), it's a failure anyway... Keep this thought in mind: I often get a kick out of how hostile people's reactions can be to my replies in their topics simply because I disagree. It never seems to occur to them that a discussion (or debate) keeps the thread alive and keeps it on the first page where it gets more attention and notice. In other words, participation isn't failure and even when not appreciated, it can be very helpful. Passions ARE strong these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliushorst Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 It never seems to occur to them that a discussion (or debate) keeps the thread alive and keeps it on the first page where it gets more attention and notice. . True, but then again it's pretty much repeating the same arguments, sometimes with different wording. Two attempts at gathering some numeric data by polls failed with more people debating methodology than actually answering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrixxieTriss Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 Two attempts at gathering some numeric data by polls failed with more people debating methodology than actually answering. Which is sad. It takes the conversation of topic for the sake of arguing semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 Which is sad. It takes the conversation of topic for the sake of arguing semantics. "BioWare needs to ignore this feedback because it's "generic"" isn't semantics though. It's "these arguments are inconvenient, and should be ignored". Why someone would be against this is every bit as important to BW as the fact that they are, or they wouldn't have asked for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilrenna Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) Most players that want to experience this content don't do so out of a sense of entitlement. They just want to enjoy the story. It's story content they haven't seen before, and they like the content they have seen, so it's natural to want to get new stories they haven't seen. Content is made to be enjoyed and consumed by players, after all. The developers' time spent creating it is best served by letting as many players as possible being able to appreciate it, especially now that it's original intent has been served. Releasing this to newer players doesn't take anything away from the older players, so there's really no downside. Edited May 19, 2019 by Gilrenna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts