M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
What's wrong with the 2 clients they already have?
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
N
NorCal
Guest
He is just repeating the main objection to a classic shard that everyone opposed to it already has. Anything that will potentially take dev time away from Prodo shards is a bad idea. I read through the Siege petition here and someone used the same logic, Siege was a waste of dev time and resources that could be better used for production shards.
I can't answer if a classic shard or improvements to Siege would be a waste of resources. My crystal ball must be broken, but I know I would pay to play a classic shard. How can they know either without inside information? It won't stop them from using the same arguement again and again.
I can't answer if a classic shard or improvements to Siege would be a waste of resources. My crystal ball must be broken, but I know I would pay to play a classic shard. How can they know either without inside information? It won't stop them from using the same arguement again and again.
The two are mutually exclusive. It's not realistic to assume that Siege will remain if a classic shard is created. Regardless of what people want to believe there will need to be people(a team) responsible for making sure a potential classic shards runs as intended. I don't expect some people to agree with me but a classic shard will be the death of Siege. Either directly or indirectly.
C
Connor_Graham
Guest
That is an assumption and nothing more. Having more options does not equate to making more money. The original investment, along with the ongoing investment in manpower and resources, have to be taken into account. It's very possible that the number of new players wouldn't be enough to meet the expected ROI, in which case the whole thing would be a total flop and end up being yet more wasted time, resources, and funds that they can't afford. Going forward with a classic shard would be a big gamble no matter how you want to look at it, keeping in mind that optimism doesn't pay the bills. At this point any projections that any of you here may make are nothing more than optimistic guesses, which doesn't make for good business.
I've seen nothing that supports your claim of mutual exclusion. Of course there will be a team to maintain the classic shard any shard needs to be maintained, how does this equal the death of siege? the shards are far to different to fight for the same player base which is exactly why most of us for a classic shard do not play on Siege.
AOS made me leave siege, and as long as it has AOS I will not return.
for starters, 1 of them is still in Beta, and the other has been neglected as a result that 4 year Beta test
My guess is that sometime during the t2a era would be the most popular. That seems to be the consensus over the years from threads I've read on the issue, and the popularity of a certain few not-to-be-mentioned alternatives.
I admit that for selfish reasons I liked the era before the anatomy changes, because just needing weapon skill + tactics meant having more viable tank character templates available. But I understand the change, and what I consider its intended purpose. (Reduce the prevalence of tank mages and tank thieves. I don't consider hally mages to be tank mages, which were in full plate and used archery when I started playing.)