(PSN)slightconfuzzled

Makes sense to me. As far as my questioning, well, one way to reach common ground, is to start with small assumptions and suppositions about reality that we might agree with, and going from there, and also finding common ground can be good for fruitful conversation and dialogue. How we all interpret and frame language and understanding can be important as well, then subsequently help us understand each other more. See in my mind, its almost odd to tell someone what they should do when they ask for advice, because asking for advice isn't always about asking for someone else to just tell you what to do. That being said, I think my example wasn't the best either, and I don't find what you said disagreeable by any means. Different people, give advice differently and all that. I thought of a better example, if it might help. Though it depends if you go on walks or not? To save time, I will assume you do. I will also assume, that you may make different decisions, based on what the weather is, and might be? Though feel free to correct any of my assumptions. If you go for a walk, you know its possible the weather will change? Knowing that its possible, do you always say... take an umbrella with you? Or are there situations, where you just consider the likelihood of raining unlikely. Now... considering that rain is unlikely, isn't some psychic claim, or crystal ball assisted certainty. You wouldn't be predicting the future... you are using various tools, to just generally assume something about reality. Right? Or? Of course sometimes, you might also think it could rain and to take extra items with you. There isn't really a should here, but could be. Guesses are just estimations and small conclusive assertions that may not be correct or certain. It may lack adequate information or context, but since that can be relative... The ability to acknowledge and distinguish when someone is making an estimation about what could happen, versus the idea of predicting certainty, and distinguishing what people think will happen, versus what they want to happen, is incredibly important being able to understand peoples intent, motives, and attributing values to them, especially ethics. For example, some countries have data around grim/sad statistics, that are tracked, and collected annually. No one should die in road accidents right? Ideally, thats something we can usually all agree with. Does that mean, you think no one will ever die in a road accident again? Maybe as an answer, is sort of potentially valid. Just if you either had to say yes or no, what would you say? Also, you do realise that people who think its likely that more road accidents will happen, aren't claiming to have a crystal ball or any supernatural abilities, and... they also probably don't want that to happen... right? It doesn't have to be a yes or no answer, since many answers could also overlap or address a different idea. I think its fine, and even contextually good practice, to not necessarily just limit ones self to yes or no answers. Especially... if they can distinguish the difference between a different persons guesses, versus desires. Just in some contexts it can seem like a forced aversion to commit to, lets say harsh truths or realities. I am not personally looking for any sort of answer that will appeal to me, or want to hear. Just your answers to certain questions can seem evasive at times, as if you only frame it around what should happen, even if what should happen isn't likely going to happen. Like do you think children should starve? Again, my assumption is that you don't think they should. Will it probably happen? Well yeah, unfortunately, because starvation and famine are still large issues that effect parts of the world, and even just negligence is a thing. Its also not a matter of having a crystal ball either. Knowing something bad/tragic will happen, doesn't mean a person wants it to happen. Also, in some cases, there is still some guess work, contextually, but also a lot of knowledge, data and information. Yes or no types answers can be useful, but if the answer is yes, then we acknowledge and understand thats a problem, that needs fixing. (Well in the last examples context). If DE did what they should, this thread wouldn't exist. Therefore what they should do in the future, might not happen either. Hence why people may make discussion points around that, as I did. I want to apologise that some of my examples are a bit grim. Its really hot and humid where I am, so all my examples are a bit morbid for some reason. Also, I could have been more concise, especially because one of your last points, you say "I can want DE to make changes to Heirloom packs even if I think DE won't do anything" you do realise that this is essentially what I said, right? Just the order is changed around a little, in that I lead with the "I don't think DE will do this, but they should", I also don't think your feedback is pointless. I am replying to you, but you quoted me to start this? My general assumption, and correct me if I am wrong, but you interpreted my thinking DE won't do what you suggested, as me endorsing that DE shouldn't? Even though I said they should (albeit, making a distinction between what they should do, and what they probably will do), which is also why we ended up discussing should, could, would etc. Hope that makes sense. Cheers.

I think you might have misinterpreted the joke I was making? Potentially, or maybe I misunderstood your point, but for clarity I was suggesting more of the game having supernatural abilities to track your location beyond any technological means. Or for a middle ground option, Skynet. Eye trackers, but without your installation or consent (and then a step further, not only does it know where you are... it knows your favourite anime waifu as well, ahhhh).

Possibly. Maybe even probably? The current Creative Director, Reb, sometimes makes allusions to potentially doing them again, with the disclaimer that changes will be made if/when they do, because of feedback from players. My interpretation based on their wording, is that they are thinking about it, but that nothing is absolutely certain. Plus for all we know, one of the changes may mean referring to them as something else. Also a disclaimer of my own, I am just going off my memory from a few Devstreams and a few other streams (like the one before Whispers launched). Her wording may have been more explicit or vague. Same, to all of that.

Nice, it reminds me of that exact same fight as well. Shara Ishvalda, may be my favourite final boss out of any Monster Hunter. I one hundred percent agree with you on their music theme too. Their entire design, and the build up to the fight was great as well, the aesthetic design of their weapons and armours were also well done. I mained Great Sword, so their weapon wasn't meta, but I still rocked it a bit (but since it wasn't a must have, I probably also tricked the desire sensor since I got all the drops I needed from them pretty easy.)

I've played the game consistently for a few years, I'm at the max rank for a non founder (LR3). I take a few breaks here and there, but its usually only really new content that i have to do. My Focus journey? Has been pretty done for a few years now. I have a few million spare Focus in each school, even after buying all the bits and pieces you can get from the Schools respective shops. Have had more Focus than I needed, even before the rework (was sort of hoping they might add in more stuff, to invest in, even its relatively minor). I too, don't really care for Lens as rewards and consider them a non reward. That being said, it doesn't bother me too much either. I'll still randomly slot them in various weapons, and I aren't always necessarily motivated by just rewards. So even though they are a waste to me, its eh. I also know I am an outlier of sorts, but would also be curious to see others answers too.

Yes, many have, but it still takes a keen and observant eye to notice... badum tish. My lame joke aside, the eye also follows you, if you move around a bit and watch it... but when I say you... I mean You... not your Warframe character. Spooky. (Well i also mean your screen's POV, it can't track whether you physically move and hide, that would be much harder to implement).

Maybe its to do with her Augment? The Waltz one? To be clear, I don't actually know either way, just throwing out a guess. If gliding requires an option for movement, and some Mesa players quip the augment and some don't, could explain the disparity.

I'M NOT BEING TRICKED AGAIN OKAY! I already got a life time ban from the Public Library! Sigh.

Others have already sort of answered. You could try checking in with Teshin at any Relay. You might have it unlocked already. However if you have already checked, then it might be the following. Steel Path, generally, tends to unlock when you have cleared all regular nodes. So in one sense, certain quests do not matter as far as unlocking it. However... certain quests do come with Nodes or may be exceptions to the rule. So it can potentially get a bit more complicated. Especially as far as the Wikia updating to be accurate. Since its possible that the act of unlocking Steel Path changes depending on when you "unlocked all nodes". So for myself? It was relatively easy and straight forward task, when it came out. Since then however? New quests and nodes have been added. I personally don't know which ones are requirements from first hand knowledge. Someone mentioned checking the Arbitration tabs, and thats good advice. Could tell you certain nodes that you might have to do. If I had to guess... Whispers in the Wall, and therefore all quests you need to do, to get you there. Personally speaking? I'd probably just do any and all quests, big or small. Might not get you the difficulty you strive for, but some might, plus most are short, or introduce some sort of mechanic or lore that might come into play later. Again though, thats more something I would personally do, I don't know how you feel about such quests and avoiding them, and so just trying to do only those that will unlock Steel Path.

Big agree. Its such a unique and fun weapon. I got it in Duviri the other day, with several gun buffing Decrees, and it made me wonder if thats a bit how it might feel if it had an Incarnon (as far as general buffs Incarnons get, even if not with a new mode). I was really hoping for a Tenet version (and still am). Though, since its so unique, coming up with an Incarnon form, could be really fun.

It worked for Kubrows and Voruna. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) not all of them specified the running on all fours thing, so...

Just that they are different, but that they also aren't the only ways to think and talk about the future. Also that you can strictly say more than just what you think will happen. If someone asks you for advice, do you only answer in maybe, since you have no crystal ball? Do you tell them what you think should happen, even if you know its not realistic? Having an idea about what might happen, and being open to the possibility you might not always be absolutely correct is something people can do. If I asked you, do you think it will rain tomorrow in your area, and if you answer either yes or no, and if you answer yes or no, and I will give you something either you or someone you really care about wants, but if answer in any other way, you won't get anything... You do have to be sincere though in your guess. Will you still answer maybe? Are you unable to answer because you can't be absolutely certain? Or do you think, well... weather forecast said it will, its also been raining a lot today, and yesterday, and seems like a storm is ongoing, and its late in the day, and even though I can't be absolutely certain, I think it will rain tomorrow... so I will say yes, with the acknowledgement I might be wrong... No one has psychic powers to see the future, but every day people distinguish between what they think might happen, and often thats different from what they think should happen. Are you incapable of guessing? Sure but I have specific points already addressing that, that still remain the same, as I have explained in many past replies. I don't just write a lot because I am paid by the hour. Vague generalisations aren't mutually exclusive to any one position. There are many "pro Heirloom pack" people making vague generalisations in an attempt to frame the situation as favourably to whatever they feel or wish. Then again, there are many people who make vague generalisations because they think it gives credit or weight to their points, arguments, or will somehow ensure they get what they want. 90 percent of scholars agree with me. Which scholars? I am sure I can find a study that isn't relevant at all to what I said, and just pretend and claim it is, then say nah ah, when you call me out on that. Are you persuaded yet? I don't want context to help me further, I am making a point about how and why people generalise to suit their purpose, even though often, their lack of understanding and objectivity can end up hurting their own goals, and end up becoming counter productive. Well that and also most people, even smart and intelligent people can be bad at putting statistics and data into context unless they have specifically trained and learned to. Even then... Like this is subjective, but you ever notice how some people are more concerned about rushing you stats and facts, without really establishing framework to provide context, when the subject involved something that they happen to have strong opinions on as well? They are a bit less interested and invested in the process of establishing context and how such data was gathered, the more neutral components, the positive variables and factors overlooked, and then letting people guide to their own conclusions, then offering feedback on potentially flawed conclusions reached? There are lots of subjects, where people can have beliefs and understanding about, that they know, if other people learn, and understand well, they will usually come to similar beliefs or understanding about. Their is no need to try and convince them beforehand. For example, and this is more of an interesting observation, than anything more or conclusive, but on Reddit, this topic, and many others like it, though obviously not that many are of this scale. Regal Aya was comparable, but such threads and "negative" sentiment do tend to be very high, and popular, especially in the first few days. The quality of the criticism in initial post can matter as well, but not always. It can remain that way for a time, but usually the better the criticism and points, tends to become a factor. They will still be popular and engaged with. However, what also starts to happen, is poor or heavily echoed sentiment, from any angle, positive or negative, starts to see downvoting after a while. My general speculation with a little bit of evidence based reasoning, is that regardless of how they may feel about the topic, people also often want to talk about other stuff, and grow weary of people shouting stuff all the time. So in months later, people who are negative/critical or pro/apologetic, making threads about the subject, can very often get negative feedback, downvotes, especially if OP is low quality or seems "annoying/pushy". There are a lot of threads about this topic, some that are similar to others, with massive disparities in reaction. It could be very easy for people to cheery pick threads to suit their "side", but there in the value of context and understanding. You need to adjust for factors like peoples patience thresholds, and how they tackle negativity especially if its repeated to them ad nauseam. Depending on whether they were pro critical, neutral or defensive/apologetic etc the effect can differ slightly as well. Which is also something businesses and people working in businesses can often know as well, because many know they can often outlast unpopular reactions and controversy. This is also something they need to be careful around too, since some also can't afford to rest on laurels. I am oversimplifying here of course. Back to Reddit. Its why when I have used in, in this thread (or maybe the other), to make points criticising Heirloom, I was quite transparent. I would try to put it into context, and be clear about how it was my observations. I can't personally track every Reddit thread over the course of weeks. I can say, that generally, in the first few weeks, negative sentiment was high, and specifically in the most popular and heated threads. I also know, that at a certain point of saturation, both negative and positive threads created, will see negative feedback. So those threads may need to be taken with a grain of salt. Either someone taking a negative thread thats gotten negative reaction, trying to use that as evidence that the Heirlooms are popular, would be leaving out a whole lot of important context, just as someone trying to make a positive thread, negatively reacted to, would, for the same reason. Likewise, for a subject like the AOE/Wukong nerfs, whilst there was plenty of negativity/criticism, it wasn't so one sided either. Except a similar trend also applies there as well. Then you can think of something like "review bombings", which unless they actually have a tangible effect on people playing, or spending, are often dismissed, because whilst to the uninformed it can seem bad or serious, to the informed, depending on other factors, its often not that serious an issue and more a tactic by a small minority to seem like a larger issue than it actually is. Review bombing also being a symptom of the same flawed and misunderstanding in thinking, that results in people making certain vague generalisations and rhetoric they think gives their own personal standpoint more weight and credibility. Do I need to make the same joke again, about saying how lots of people know this and feel this to be the case, and therefore I am just right? How convenient? So its not that I am not accepting feedback. I have literally made similar points about Reddit in this thread, to explain to people, how there is a substantial amount of people with critical views about this, and they likely outnumber the positive (with greater context than what I just wrote). Why would I not accept points I have already made myself? I talking about the importance of context in establishing conclusions, and why sometimes the conclusions drawn aren't accurate or credible, based on the amount of context provided. You can't always just take one statistic over a complicated issue, and think that it conveniently supports your personal viewpoint, and doesn't actually have adequate data to make it. Or that it doesn't result in other more nuanced conclusions or interpretations. Or that you can even have a lot of stats to draw on, but how you don't want to cherry pick some numbers, and they may also need to be put in context, and all the other variables that need to be accounted. Or when taking peoples statements, why and how what they mean can be multifaceted, and not just conveniently something to support your view. Or that sometimes a transparent interpretation that acknowledges unknowns or lack of data, but presents a case/conclusion can have more strength, credibility and weight, than a stronger assertion, that doesn't actually seem to account for several issues or context that should be addressed. So I will accept a lot, and also aren't rejecting anything of what you have said. I have just pointed out several issues with it as far as data and why/how some of the conclusions you have reached may not be accurate, and the pros and cons of that. Then how similar processes also often lead people to make far more egregious claims, with escalated stakes, that once again, often are hollow. Just because they aren't actually good at being objective with stats and context, and because they try to weaponise stats or sentiment they think stats can give them (or other sources, like appeals to authority or majority), but they think that their opinion will carry more weight. Not realising that their opinion can carry more weight, but it may depend on how well they can establish context, how objective, sincere their audience is, cooperative conversations versus antagonistic arguments etc. Missing the mark is a pretty simple idea, and not one I am disputing. I am not sure you genuinely understand the point I am trying to make here, but hopefully above helped. With the review bombing situation, over AOE/Wukong, did you personally think that it carried a lot of weight? Or did you attempt to apply context around it? Do you think 3000 negative reviews is "Warframe missing the mark" or would you try to give context to that situation? With the Heirlooms, I would, personally say that DE did miss the mark, but I wouldn't expect anyone to just take my word for it randomly. I have a lot of context, I could give to support my view. That I already have in this thread, including some of the points you have made, but with much additional points as well. I have been in most of this thread. Do you know why I am not accusing you of being a pro Heirloom player? I have read most of your posts, and am familiar. DE have said a lot of things, have you taken their word as fact for all of them? Are they gospel to you now? Or does context not matter. Missing the mark like I said, is a really simple way to frame a situation, but its also different from "I went to one Reddit thread last month, and 10 people said they don't like Heirlooms and will quit the game, DE is in big trouble unless they fix everything", and I am not saying that you said the latter, because you obviously didn't. I do hope you can see the difference and see how flawed one is, despite trying to use data. Both are generalisations, one is attempting to give its self more credibility, but not necessarily doing a great job providing context. Even the other, is so generalised as to be vague. One could say something as hollow as "Despite some setbacks, DE has reinforced its overall standing with big updates this year, hitting its stride!" which is just PR speak to sound really good, by being so vague, its almost meaningless. Even though I agree they missed the mark, it carries the same energy as the guy who thinks we don't know he reads replies to his bad arguments and frames such subjects as having "winners" and "losers", even though thats the last thing a business like DE would want or claim. Its the context that helps distinguish the two. What more do you need to understand? (This is rhetorical, but see how this insinuates that you are ignoring something? Sincere question, do you not understand that I am critical towards the Heirlooms, and if i had to guess, possibly more critical than you? Its the bad framing and application of context poorly, I am critiquing? Also, critiquing because it was pushed on me, as opposed to me looking for it? Since its common enough, its not something I seek, generally, but you know. If people start conversations, I can go with them. You don't need 150 combined pages of feedback, DE has already added a few Kavat armours since, but did DE add them because they were afraid of that single users prophecy of being out of business? Also, how many people would generally object to more cosmetics being added to the game? Are those same people, also convinced that Warframe is going to go out of business and be a dead game in less than a year? If DE does go out of business within 2 to 5 years... is it because they attempted too many Heirloom skins, or is it because they didn't add enough Kavat armours? Is 3000 Negative Reviews more significant and influential than 150 pages of combined feedback? Is that 150 pages, filled with 1000 different players? Or 200? Is asking questions about them, fear mongering and projection? Isn't that what some of what the pro Heirloom people have been saying about peoples criticisms? Here, I will try to make this simple for both of us. In some situations (not this one), bad arguments can as devastating to your own cause, and points, as the "other side" having a good argument. Like in certain political situations. Where good faith are shared goals aren't necessarily valued. In some situations, its less of an issue, if shared goals, and health cooperation is shared, like in a good science lab. Bad arguments aren't good there either, but peoples egos and biases are acknowledged better, usually, and usually left to the side, because the priority is accuracy, validity, understanding and testing for variables, as to consider them, or influence the, for making tests, drawing conclusions and so on. Bad arguments are usually less an issue there, because they are easier to spot, when people are helping each other with a goal and trying to eliminate bad technique and methodology is a priority from everyone involved. However in certain political spaces... bad arguments are actually quite handy, because they can be used as ammo, by those who want to discredit others. Bad arguments can be conflated with bad positions, and bad ideals, and bad objectives. So can good arguments, as far as attempts go, but if the other "side" is already making bad arguments, well that just makes it easier for you. Especially if the people you are trying to appeal to, or win over, aren't necessarily the best at catching on to what you are doing. In this thread it doesn't really matter for a few reasons. Its a video game talking about skins, some people might be taking sides, but for most, its... just one topic in one game. Its not some life long ideology. That and DE wants money. Contrary to some apologists views, DE doesn't really care for them defending them, because they aren't really. Not many of them. They are defending their own idea of DE (which, sure). DE ultimately wants money and satisfied players, in a way that best achieves that other goal. However that also doesn't mean they aiming to make every player satisfied. That won't work either, so feedback and what they do with feedback isn't really so simple in a vacuum. Its more complicated. Bad arguments regardless on what the person behind them, feels in this thread, don't really matter in the sense, that to DE, their ideal, is to be able to sift through the bad arguments and rhetoric and distil it, and combine it with other sources of feedback, including some, only they are privy to, to then adjust to that. So its not really a matter of ignoring feedback or taking it all at face value either, They are approaching (ideally), in a less personal, ego driven way, and more of objective based way. Business principals and all that. Not the antagonistic relationship present in say politics (that some fans don't seem to realise), but also not necessarily with the transparency and good faith that might occur in say a good science lab. Business ideals and relationships are its own thing. I'm not trying to come at you from an antagonistic, political vantage. To my best understanding, you and I agree on most of the important things, as far as being critical of the Heirlooms and criticisms against unethical or predatory and greedy video game practices. I am more of a science type person, who knows a bit about business. In other situations, talking about the strength and weakness of certain arguments is neutral, and for benefit. Context and accuracy is important, as is the value of being neutral and objective, especially... if you have certain viewpoints (that you may have developed from such data, as opposed to developed emotionally), because they can be vulnerable to the sort of thing, some people do, when they take a sports fan approach or political approach (the side I am on, is always right, no matter what). Even though thats not the situation here, its still how I intuitively tend to communicate. So in short, it could be paraphrased as "I think DE missed the mark on Heirlooms, but some of your points were better than some of your.... others. Here's what I mean, and why it matters. Though not even necessarily some of your points, but certain general ideas that overlap, like putting statements and assertions into context.". Hope that helps.

There are a few different weapons I would like to see get the Incarnon treatment. Whilst I don't want to see every gun get it, and are happy with what we currently got, there are like 400 hundred thousand guns in the game already, and some peoples whole category of favourite weapons are yet to be represented. For myself personally, there are two types of weapons that I would like to see... Some older classic, icon weapons that have fell by the wayside. Much like many of the current Incarnon. Weapon like Tigris Prime, returning to the meta, would be great. Sybaris Prime, is such an elegant weapon, but has fallen behind the game a little. Then also weapons that are a bit uncommon, and relatively unique. Having a sniper Incarnon for example. I also don't think that having an alt fire necessarily disqualifies a weapon from potentially becoming one. All sorts of potential work arounds. Either way, and I wouldn't mind a Daikyu Incarnon, Amprex Incarnon, Veidt Incarnon, some sort of heavy blade Incarnon, a few thrown explosive weapon incarnons. Attica Incarnon could be interesting too.

Yup and agreed with your points. I have made several critical posts about the Heirlooms on the Forums. Otherwise, I would probably say more about it, myself here, but yeah, agreed. It was frustrating for me, since, overall, I have really enjoyed Whispers in the Wall, Duviri, the companion rework, and pretty much all the new Warframes this year, so overall I am pretty positive on Warframe and DE at the moment, but... still quite some deep criticisms too.

All good, I sympathise with such situations, and know it can be annoying when you already feel frustrated to have people try and argue with you online. I just wanted to make sure, in case you weren't aware. The particular wording is a bit misleading, since Frost and Mag were sort of "late surprise additions" to the Prime Resurgence, in the sense, they were added to coincide with the Heirloom collections. The Heirloom Collections are quite expensive, relatively speaking, and only contain skins/cosmetics, as opposed to Warframes. So... basically, DE probably figured it was important to make sure, that people who brought those collections, definitely also had a way of acquiring Frost Prime and Mag Prime via Resurgence, so they could actually have them to use the skins on. However since they are sort of tied to that, they are listed as being "Limited" in the menu... Even though, incidentally, all of it is limited by nature and many Warframes go out of rotation regularly, and they have remained. Weird right? For a person like me, who was around when that happened, its much clearer and obvious why/how they chose their wording, but not necessarily the most intuitive for everyone else. Anyway, again, above is more for context and clarity if you were curious. I do understand and sympathise with your frustration. Also regardless of what you plan on doing, game wise, good luck! Especially if you try to nab that Oberon part. He's a fun Warframe though TBH, I think his Prime Design is ugly so you may also have to spend money for Tennogen, depending on what you think of the visual design lol. All the best.

For clarity sake, and in no way undermining or invalidating your frustration or criticisms or general feedback, you are aware of the little section of the Prime Resurgence screen, that talks about the rotation timer and next available offerings? It doesn't always have the number or time filled in (usually when its planned to be quite a long rotation), but for the past few weeks its had a timer there, and though I haven't logged on today, I am guessing the timer is up now, since we are on short rotations. I just want to check, if you are aware of the screen and section I am referring to?

When the table is set, the plates come out, everyone sits, nobody gives a fork, the silver spoons can get shot first. Thats knife. Dinners ready, you feeling lucky punk! (Yes this is another Mesa = Table joke).

Whilst I think this is framed peculiarly, and I wanted to be a little bit sarcastic (as in these aren't really solutions to a problem, like already mentioned, this is using in game tools, to enhance a particular play style, or maximise the strengths of certain weapons/minimise the weaknesses etc), I can always appreciate someone trying to lend tips, advice and assistance to fellow players. So thats legit. Not my fav play style, but to throw another tip, or more of a video recommendation, but Garuda has some good synergies with certain AOE weapons like Zarr. AznvasionsPlays on Youtube has a pretty good video going in depth on this. Requires some set up, but on the plus side, that amount of set up, means we won't see it everywhere, whilst those that enjoy that kind of thing, can get it,

I can elaborate. Sometimes i meet people who have aversions to certain answers, or guesses. Do you think Warframes are secretly real, and produced by DE, and next year they will send all Warframe fans, trillion dollar futuristic Warframe models, to act as subservient, obedient fun toys? Do you think tomorrow the Moon will wake up, unfurl to be a giant Dragon, and then demand Earth make them the Queen? Maybe, would still be a valid answer, but usually most people will also lean towards either yes or no. No, I don't think that is likely, or yes I don't think that is likely, or it might even be a stronger sense of yes or no. Definitely not, definitely yes. Some yes and no leanings, can still acknowledge maybe as well. Sure, there is not always a clear cut yes or no answer, but remember, that we are on this current track, because I innocently expressed I didn't think something would happen, and the framing of your response was along the lines of they (DE) should, but what I think will happen, and what DE or anything should do, are two completely different things. Hence some of my responses. You can answer here saying maybe, okay sure. I would almost think you have a slight leaning to either yes or no as well as maybe, but fair enough. Now imagine someone saying "no maybes about it, DE should, therefore you think they should" but maybe, maybe is just more accurate to what you think will happen. Which doesn't reflect any criticisms or points you would make about what DE should do, from what they will do. Yeah pretty much the same on my end as well. Though, for me personally, its sort of a balancing game. DE legit surprised me with how bad Heirloom situation was. I like Warframe, but I like DE and I want them to survive the games industry the way they mostly have been for the last decade. I never really want to see other games fail as comeuppance, but in recent months Warframe, has seen a lot of Destiny 2 players migrate. Personally, I don't really know much about Destiny 2, now do I feel competitive towards it. Maybe Destiny 2 has gotten an influx of Warframe players recently as well, I don't really know. Despite being thrown off by how bad Heirloom situation was, everything else from Warframe recently has been great in my eyes. I personally liked Shadows and Duviri this year, plus the QOL updates, a lot of the recent Warframes. Creates almost a frustrating cycle, but of course every individuals cycle can differ a little. If someone hasn't cared for anything or found any recent update good, then the bad starts to stack. Context helps, and data helps context. Otherwise you end up with situations like the Wukong/AOE update, with very misleading "stats", people who aren't good at understanding and interpreting stats, and then many meaningless conversations about stats, numbers, or points that have no bearing in reality and are just the results of speculation, biases and all sorts of faulty pattern seeking humans are extremely liable to. Most people with even pretty normal egos, and general sense of pride, will often mistakenly put too much stock into their own experiences, beliefs, preferences and what they draw on, as far as making conclusions. Not many people are intuitively good at reigning some of those aspects in, usually it requires certain kinds of knowledge, education, critical thinking, to first realise how faulty we can be (well relatively speaking, since comparatively we are also really good as a species, just more in a flat survival sort of way, not as far as being objective). I don't doubt none of what you said is pulled from nowhere, just it can also be hard to distinguish various claims and context around some of your statements. For example, there was once a user that fear mongered that Warframe would be a dead game soon, unless they started to create more Kavat armours, since cats were popular, and they really wanted more customisation options. Do you agree that Warframe will be dead soon for that reason? Maybe? Or is it more likely, that particular individual, (assuming they are sincere), does really like Kavats, and desires more customisation, but is also a bit too bias and heavily influenced by they own interests and preferences and projects inaccurate ideas about how much it matters to most other people? Like here you just said, it "doesn't matter how you split it", but it literally does matter. You threw a few stats at me, (appreciated) but you should already know, that in a vacuum without context, such data could be relatively meaningless. Good and reliable conclusions from such data, requires a general sort of reference point with Warframe itself and other games. So how do such splits across multiple different ratings and reviews look like. On controversial items are the numbers overall higher. Are the ratings indicative of player frustration animosity or to do with the content itself. For the individual behind the rating is there a difference? How consistent are they in that approach? Do they only habitually negatively rate controversial items/collections. See, my initial, flawed reaction to some of your stats, as a person critical of the Heirlooms is... disappointed. 57%, 47%, 44%, is a lot more positive than I would hope. I saw flawed because of above, I don't have a lot of context, so maybe some context could modify the following, but generally... I know happy, content, positive people, don't have as much need to affirm how they feel and express it in reviews or ratings. Frustrated, negative, critical, annoyed, etc people generally do though. Like if you were to even take this thread and the other PSA thread, there is a lot more general negativity and criticism. Much higher ratio/percentage of negativity to positivity. So in that context, 57%, 47%, 44% actually looks pretty good. Its "polarising", "split", not a "disaster" or "radioactive" like how some might frame it... Except... Like I emphasised, context. Depending on some other stats, habits, references, you could draw positive or neutral or negative conclusions about them. One of the biggest, will be how much profit DE made off them, whether it was close to projections, whether it was worth the stress and damage control, and how long peoples memories are. For my own guess, I do think people involved, did underestimate how large and severe the negative feedback and backlash would be, and as someone critical of Heirlooms, thats good, as far as loud messages being sent. Since DE isn't a hydra, its also good for any within DE who may have seen it being a sore point but may have been overruled or hushed by others. Those ratings and stats should be like 17%, 14%, but also, just because they aren't, doesn't mean they were a very bad idea as well, again, depends on the context. I don't think anything I have said, has implied or suggested that Heirlooms were a positive thing. I'm more about putting things into context. Heirlooms didn't make me mad, or angry, or emotional (not that there is anything wrong with feeling that way in general). I am highly critical of Heirlooms in the context of consumer rights, and being against predatory gaming behaviour and techniques as employed by games companies and developers. So its a bit more ideological and thought driven criticisms and objections. Less emotion filled. Like I said, since I know that, I know that a lot of people who share my general distaste and negativity, won't always be around or care as much, once their emotions run dry. So there are downsides and upsides. One upside, is that often angry emotional people, do tend to get noticed a bit quicker. I suck at writing a quick, angry complaint that will shock DE, which can sometimes be a good thing. As far as consumer and business interactions. That being said, one downside, is those types of people, are usually bad at stats, because they are often thinking emotionally. They over generalise, and make claims they can't back up. The throw out threats and warnings, that have no follow up. As someone who may want real long term consequences and effects, thats bad... but it can also get complicated. So we return to square one and what I think was the main point of contention. What happens if/when DE does Heirlooms again. Some of us, are like, they shouldn't, because they will bring on negativity, etc and I agree, especially if they don't change anything (which we already know they intend to, but lets say that the changes aren't that good), but then also so what? DE have already shown that they can survive and live past Heirlooms. Some posters are like "DE needs to do this, they need to suck up their pride, they need to abandon this, and that" okay, but then what if they don't? What are those people going to do about it? Quit? Some, sure, just like some people quit over Regal Aya, but for many people, even those critical, its never going to be so bad they quit. So I think the posters saying things like "DE needs to do this and that", they are valid takes, and I sympathise with the frustration, but they also seem like really empty threats that are temporary and fleeting and about emotional venting than long term goal setting about motivating DE to be better and actually improve. Its more about comforting the individuals own emotional frustrations than sending a strong consistent message to DE. If people lean onto situations where they are like "DE needs to do this or else" whaat happens when DE calls their bluff? Not that I think DE will, because I do think whatever they decide to do around this particular topic, will be improved, but for you example. If they don't make the next "Heirlooms", Deluxe Skins like Mesa and Volt, like we both generally think should (though I am skeptical of actually happening, but would be happy to be wrong), what then? They should, but they didn't/if they don't? This is why I don't personally frame things like that per say. Its not the ultimatum like some of the other posters in this thread, but a lot of critical people have made ultimatums, they can't actually stick to. Generalisations that can hinder their points/feedback rather than strengthen.

Firstly, I appreciate the effort you undertook putting this together. Secondly, if such subjects find your interest in general, TheKengineer, a Warframe content creator on Youtube, did a few different videos, with a similar question, and really good break downs, and answers and other sort of relevant info. Worth a check out if you are interested. Video titles are Which frame takes the LONGEST to farm? and How long is EVERY Warframe farm in 2023? It wasn't my worst farm, but I was an outlier for the Wisp farm experience. I think, based on the odds and how many runs i had to do, I was in an 0.01 percent of players. As far as "bad luck" and having to repeat. Over 60 runs. On the other hand, I was also quite "lucky" with Khora and Equinox. Its also... see Styanax I got for free, from the game, just for logging in, otherwise, I might think his farm is the worst. Gauss farm was frustrating at the time, but I actually started to enjoy Disruption and now its one of my fav modes. Maybe Caliban as well. I was bored of those bounties, one of them would consistently glitch a lot, I also was annoyed, none of the BP's were dropping, and I kept on getting something called "Narmer Isoplast" and then when the BP's did drop, I realised I now had to farm Narmer Isoplasts... and then wasn't getting them at all...

I get what you are saying (I think), so I won't press this point too much, but you can do more than just say what you think they should do. Or at the very least, understand and acknowledge that other people often frame the future, or various consequences that can happen, not just in what they think should happen, but what can happen regardless, and how that can be different from what they would like to happen. Yes? I mean, sure, if you want to frame something as they might do it... so its realistic possibility, and leveraging word meanings against each other? Again sure. It just seems like an odd way to either avoid saying that you don't think they will do something, but maintaining that its possible, in a everything can be possible in the right situation. To me, its almost telling when what can be a simple yes or no answer to something, ends up as more than that. Which again, nothing wrong with that either, especially with wanting to give more context. Like if someone asked me if I think Citrine is getting a Prime this year. I do know that in the past, newer Warframes have skipped the line, its just relatively rare. I also do not know this for absolute certain, but based on precedence, release dates, and Warframe gender considerations, this year? As far as Primes, probably Gauss, Protea, Xaku and Lavos. Possibly Yareli, depending on how they want to go with patterns and Xaku. Either way, I can also, if need be, just say no, I do not think she is. Even if I would like that to happen. Likewise, whilst I don't necessarily outright disagree, don't necessarily think a claim of "DE should do this if they are truely invested and intend to follow the lesson they have supposedly learned from" holds that much weight. This is just a way that people add qualifiers to give weight, or urgency or gravity to claims. If you were really sincere and good faith, you would agree with me on this, right? See I just used the same sort of rhetoric, but you might not agree with me, because who am I, to make such a claim about your sincerity and what you should do? Sure, but depending on the context, that can entail different things. The player public reaction was definitely not great, in a way that be easily understood and conveyed, but the Heirlooms monetary success could be very different. They wouldn't have to ignore anything, if they already know that potentially, a minority of a minority, are vocally unhappy. Especially if, again, they always generally understand that a minority of a minority is always going to be a little annoyed, no matter what (just like a minority of a minority will always be content and grateful (even though thats not necessarily a positive to DE). If DE were making a lot of profit from the packs, but aware that many were very unhappy with them, do you think Rebecca would say "Well, i know you guys got big upset, but the Heirlooms are actually making a lot of cash right now, so you guys are obviously wrong and we know business better than you, so you should shush and let us cook!" or if she is aware that players were upset, and she was bothered by the way they handled the situation, even if they were doing decently, you don't think she would want to express such frustrations and consolidate with upset, frustrated, annoyed players? Its a bit like double speak, when they talk about certain things like Lunaro, and talking about the positives, but in a way thats inoffensive to players, and then also talking about how they missed the mark, but in a way thats inoffensive to all the people that worked hard on that, game side. Or to your question, more directly, as in would she say that if the reception (or by my meaning, internal data showed the Heirlooms were successful in ways, that had more to do with business, then yes. I think she would still say that, and I also already covered this in one of my older replies already. Since contrary to many peoples understanding, and belief, many businesses will try to accommodate, smaller minorities of fans, as far as portions being frustrated or bothered by a decision, depending on the context. Lets say, somehow, magically, all things were known to all, with full transparency. On every given issue that people had issues with, they don't need to be a majority, for that issue to be recognised and addressed or be valid either. Especially for businesses who prioritise longer term relationships with a fanbase, and one that can traditionally have retention issues. I think Rebecca is the kind of person, that would apologise for a lot of things, if it meant trying to accommodate as many different players as possible, with some exceptions. Just her background on the Community management side of things. This is what I mean about vague generalisations though as well. If I asked you how many, do hands, does your average healthy human, usually have, according to most medical sources etc, thats relatively simple. You can say two. Of if I asked for fingers on those hands, you could say 10 (or maybe 8, depending on your stance on thumbs). If I asked you how many people play Warframe, you could give me various stats from say Steam. If I asked you how many people brought the Heirloom packs? Or what percentage of Warframe playerbase are negative on them? What would your serious answer be? See, I am pretty open, that I don't know about DE's internal data, or how well Heirlooms sold, its why I use terms like if, and will throw out hypotheticals. A lot of us often frame assertions around data that, plainly they can't actually know, so usually end up just guessing or passing off as fact, or some other sort of appeal, that attempts to cover for the idea, they are just pulling data from nowhere. Totally fair. My question was also more about whether you would actually listen and hear out what the new changes would be. Since again, I completely agree and sympathise, first hand, about the negative taste Heirlooms acquired and why people would be very skeptical and jaded. Just that, its also not a game breaker for me, and even less of one, if they actually make significant improvements. Like, even though I personally consider it, not happening. Lets say that DE does exactly what you personally want, and think they should, by giving them the Mesa and Volt Deluxe skin treatments. They make them available for Plat, its roughly the same amount of Plat as well. Its permanently available. Would you sit there and say "nah, not good enough, the Heirloom name is too tarnished, we should all be s critical as last time" or would your stance be softened to the naming convention, because all the other stuff was addressed? My general point is, since a lot of different people have different thresholds and ideas about what would improve those packs, a lot of peoples stances will naturally be softened, even if for some, DE still didn't do enough. Which is always going to be a tricky and potentially frustrating issue in general. I was one of the people, that was critical, right from the beginning, and then I remember waking up one morning, and seeing a few peoples posts, saying "DE fixed the Heirlooms, they are making changes, we won", but then i read what they were changing (adding more Plat) and thought... well, nothing, nothing was actually addressed or "fixed", but sometimes their "fixes" are enough to quell the anger, and then often, quelled anger leads to apathy from a lot of people. Worse, some people can get "tired" of peoples objections, and then you also end up in this weird, spite situation, where some people just want you to drop the topic, which is its whole own thing as far as people dynamics.. Its also a bit tricky, because ultimately, we all will tend to do whats best for us, whether that be quitting the game, enduring, or even being apathetic to certain issues. Like as weird and silly I think the players who openly admitted they wanted to own something exclusive and special and not want others to have that opportunity, they are still a consumer with certain rights that should be made available to them, even if I think they are also being anti-consumer. Oh, my bad, I more meant under the... on console, which I think is different, though I think they are changing this with Gauss Prime, but Accessories is its own bundle. In my local currency, its around $100. I wouldn't necessarily try to put a real life price on Platinum, just for such comparisons, because whilst I think a person can, its never going to be a neat comparison, because the way grinding can work in the game, as far as FTP players, versus players who might have more disposable income. I have more disposable income, but I also remember being a poor kid, who would never have been able to afford Prime Accessories. Some of which are very awesomely designed. Again, its something i just had to learn to deal with, as far as being a FTP model, and DE needs its money from somewhere, but ehhh.I appreciate the sentiment all the same though, cheers. (Oh and I also forget to mention, that even with the old system, waiting for Accessories when they returned on Unvault and the Regal Aya situation, does make them cheaper, but overall, its more of a sentimental argument, because I am generally against certain practices in video games, and many of their practices, which you and I have covered in such conversations). I definitely agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment here too.

All good. What you are doing is very normal, fair and valid, and in no way am I trying to undermine or invalidate that. Like i mentioned in the beginning, I am not a lawyer either, and I am happy to be educated by anyone that has more knowledge and understanding and expertise in this matter. That also being said, I do know a fair amount about certain overlapping issues, as I am big on consumer rights. On some of these matters, I find it... A lot of people have strong opinions, but only have their personal interpretation and a basic understanding of the legal aspects involved. Which if its honest, its honest. These are forums with topics to be discussed, its natural. I for example, am clueless when it comes to a lot of behind the scenes video game mechanics, even though I enjoy the finished product. That being said I also think a lot of people overlook the sincerity and simplicity of not knowing something. Like sometimes, thats the most honest answer. I know just enough about certain legal topics, to know its way more complicated and nuanced than what I used to think it was, and potentially a lot of other people think as well. No apologies needed, you answers and responses were sincere. I just likely suspect we have different ideas around burden of proof/evidence. Like if someone asked me if DE is legally bound in such situations, I could write a small essay on why they could be, and why they might not be, depending on certain factors, but I would probably start and end my mini essay with "I don't know for certain". Since I think thats ultimately the most important and most honest bit. Since when i personally make assertive and affirmative claims about stuff, I like to give that weight. I also do know, DE often avoids stating whether something is legally binding or not, because sometimes that level of ambiguity suits them. If players think they are legally bound in some situations, thats actually pretty convenient for them. Then they have also changed things around a lot despite what they have said... often when it seems convenient in other ways. They modify packs all the time, because and this is something they know very well, as per the No Clip documentary, player goodwill is extremely valuable. You can get more money from players with a long term relationship than a short term. Side note. I used to work in graphic design, there can be hilarious and funny legal situations around various issues that overlap, especially as far as misleading marketing, deception, false advertising etc, in ways that I think many businesses have gotten away with, and some haven't, various countries inconsistencies with each others, how sometimes law has to play catch up in many cases with new technology. Even if you just Google fast food outlets and burger sizes, you will get a ton of results, different results, from different incidents etc Its kind of an interesting and funny rabbit hole to fall down. You get to ask all sorts of interesting questions too, like having a job, where you want to try make something seem appealing, but what are the limits to that? Since a lot of people know, many adverts of food, look way better than actual foods. Anyway this last paragraph is a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to say i enjoyed our conversation. Cheers and good day to you.

My apologies, let me rephrase. Can you give explanative context to your claims, with examples and citations, specifically. Like, pretend you are an actual layer, and explain why and how DE would be guilty of false advertising, and dispel how interpretations may not interfere and so on. Since, once again, you are just doing what I mentioned earlier, and just reemphasising your interpretation. I don't need you to rephrase your interpretation with more additional points (though thanks regardless), but ideally I would like you to demonstrate more credibility and knowledge by explaining the nuance and specific issues that are (or would be) relevant here, in a way a random anonymous person may not be able to. For example, are you familiar with Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants? Its a pretty famous lawsuit, and was often cited or believed by many as a frivolous litigation. I am not a lawyer, but I know a lot about the context of this case. On an online forum, you could have two different groups arguing the merits of the case. With this example, I could go into a lot more of the nuance and answer various questions about the details and specifics, and since I am not a lawyer give very specific citations and references if need be. Not just vague generalisations based on open interpretation. I can do that there, because I am much more knowledgable on that case, than the relevant issues that would be involved with DE and such products and bindings. That being said, my knowledge in the other case, gives me reference to know what a good explanation is, versus someone just having an opinion without much else to back it up. For example, "McDonalds was right", because "hot coffee hot", well... and then I would actually explain why that isn't necessarily accurate and what specific points were leaned on, argued and how it was all framed, including the aftermath and attempts to discredit the case after, and many of the public myths/misunderstandings that occurred. Not coming back isn't the same as legally bound to never coming back. See Founders pack reference and counter points. Again, i am not that invested in it, but you might be. To your knowledge, has any DE representative, Steve, Scott, Rebecca, James etc have any of them ever said that legally they can not sell Founders? That they are legally bound, etc? Since I imagine that could be a more convenient way, if such a quote exists from them (as opposed to the leg work required to frame complicated legal issues to explain a point). I highly doubt the Founders pack is ever being rereleased, but thats quite a different claim from it being a legally binding issue. Which is another thing from claiming it is, versus just sincerely not knowing one way or another. For example, DE has marketed limited time items that have returned. Also, isn't it only false marketing if there was/is reasonable intent to deceive, as opposed to a legitimate shift in belief/marketing, which can be as easily swayed by several sources (including shifting to better match consumers). For example, in the Liebeck v. McDonalds, I mentioned earlier, a notable highlight of the case, was McDonalds had been deceptive over reasons given for the temperature of their coffees, which they were caught up over. As far as I am generally aware and to the best of my knowledge, many businesses are allowed to be a bit flexible when it comes to changing sales techniques/tactics, and as long as they are not intentionally being misleading or deceptive, they can go back on certain claims, if for legitimate reasons. Like catering to consumer demands, if the industry changes in some way, in which case they have external reasons to readjust. There are lots of reasons to prompt changes in direction, without being deliberately deceptive or misleading (in intent). Which of course is different from being mislead (as far as consumer perception).

I think you are thinking in too small of a scale. Why not make it so that your Rivens across your total weapon arsenal, have stats which influence and determine the strength scaling of your roaming Orbiter Decorations? Meaning you will need a negative attack speed Riven for the Amphis so your Domestik Drone doesn't murder you the next time you try to craft Forma at the Foundry? Stack stick pseudo exalted weapons is 2023 terminology, its 2024 now, we on stat stick nemesis orbiter decoration mode!

Sure, but everyone knows some things from the Internet, but you are doing this thing a lot of people often do (myself included here and there), and its not a bad thing, to be clear, but you aren't really explaining, you are more reiterating. See, from my understanding and what I have heard, the reason the Founders pack hasn't been brought back, isn't for legal reasons. Thats just one of the common reasons or parroted ideas that players bring up, or assume, or think. Like I brought up, there are differences between legal bindings and self imposed bindings or choices/decisions. They can also intermingle potentially as well. Like I said, to my understanding, such things can be more complicated than what the average person may think as far as binary, yes or no answers. Now, I want to acknowledge, I have heard a lot of opinions and different viewpoints about why the Founders items haven't been brought back, but nothing I would consider definitive or conclusive. As far as from players side. I am also not that personally interested or invested in finding out either. I think there are plenty of non legal reasons as to why they wouldn't want to or shouldn't. Then like I said, I am not personally knowledgable enough nor do I have the legal expertise to say one way or another. I am aware of Rebeccas short interview on the topic, from a few years back, when she had a different position at DE. To my best understanding, she doesn't have a background in law, (I might be wrong), but she did seem particular in her wording. In that she clarified, to her understanding, it would never return. Which makes sense. She might not have the authority or legal understanding to say something more explicit. She is just giving a sincere response which in all practicality, is accurate and will probably remain accurate. She never said for example "legally we can't" which doesn't mean thats the reason... It could be, and similarly maybe she didn't feel qualified to phrase it in that way either. I may not be a lawyer, but I am a lot more knowledgable on consumer rights ideas and practices in various countries. To my best understanding, nothing in the links you gave me, (FTC one is down at the moment, but I am semi familiar with similar), endorses the statements you have made. At most, it just opens up a discussion about the potential legal miniature that would be involved as far as interpreting certain relevant terms involved, like the nature of misleading, discretion involved with pre-established agreements, consent, and even whether thats adequate or legally accountable (certain businesses can ask for us to agree to something in advance, but that doesn't always mean, that if something goes wrong, its absolutely binding either, depending on what it is, see examples of legal situations where fine print was deemed unenforceable, or beyond reason, or obscured beyond reason etc). Which is why earlier, I shorted handed a lot of this to just being "complicated". If you could, could you take some of the text within the links you provided, and actually give a clear explanation, using references to specify where and how DE would be liable to ramifications, and accounting for how they couldn't or can't be covered by other legal means either? Also, to point out the obvious, i know its not your job to convince me, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. Like i said, I am just incredibly skeptical of random anonymous people online essentially using a just "trust me bro argument" because thats their uninformed interpretation. When I have a certain interpretation of something, I can usually go into great explanation with references, sources, and the ability to give it context, because I also know its not enough to just have an interpretation. I have to be able to adequately explain stuff a little bit. That make sense? Was it a temporarily cash only supporter bundle? You are on PC right? Do you think their could be some inconsistency? I ask because I could buy the Mesa skin with Plat the day of? Granted a few hours after the update, so maybe it wasn't available right away. Anyway, I would like that too, I just don't think its realistically going to happen. Do you think Excalibur Prime coming back is realistic? I would like it, but I don't think it will hence. Sure maybe, because I am not necessarily trying to reach an absolute consensus with you over every single detail of what is wrong with the Heirloom packs. we are just two individuals, and even if we could potentially agree on some overlapping issues, its highly unlikely we could agree completely on every nuance or detail. Likewise, everyone else who was/is critical as well. If I could highlight what I generally agree a large portion of peoples criticisms and complaints were... (and in no particular order), It would be, the bundling options. Some people do not care for Regal Aya and Platinum and the implications it carries (increased price/bloated pricing to justify the price), some the bundling, in the sense, they may only want one skin, either for Frost, or Mag, and not both, s they would rather have options around that. Then for some, it was the price. Way too high. Then for some, it was the price, only being real life currency and not one of Warframes premium currencies. Then for some, it was the FOMO aspects, specifically never returning as opposed to say being on rotation. Then for many, it was the Supporter Accolade and its implications... Then for many, it was the combination of some of those factors. Plus a few more, that arguably weren't as often vocalised. Like I know some were bothered it ruined Tennocon etc Also, for clarity, there is a difference to me, between improving on Heirlooms as an abstract generalisation, and what my personal, subjective idea for what the ideal improved Heirloom situation should look like. A lot of my references to improved are more for the context on the other points made, as in what would soften the blow for many. I'll mention some aspects like the FOMO aspect, but just to give an example. Don't necessarily disagree with other issues either, in theory or practice, but also consider some more likely than others. I don't disagree with your overall point, I would just emphasis what a person says for themselves, and applies and projects on to others can be very different things. Are you conscious and self aware of that? Remember there was a communication error last year about a weekend resource booster. DE advertised it in a news update, then a few hours later changed it, caused some minor arguments here and at Reddit, DE eventually just went ahead with a Resource Booster weekend. Oh and for a more recent example, the Nightwave miscommunication about "extra" or "replacement" acts. For some players, such incidents are the end of DE, and sure some might be exaggerating out of frustration, but a lot of players like to draw lines in the sand, not just for themselves... but for others. Like I also said, for some, the Regal Aya situation was the last straw. We remained though, so was it that we didn't have the same courage or convictions as those players? Or were the changes they made sufficient, or was the situation not as dire as to where we felt quitting permanently was appropriate? If I could make a more simplified concise version of my point, it would be, do you think its possible, you could be overestimating how negative other people will be if they continued with the Heirloom branding, and is it possible that if they made enough changes, even if they aren't the exact same changes you personally would want, you could also see less negativity from others? Personally, the way time works, its my general view, that unless DE does exactly the same thing over again, peoples attitudes will be a lot more softer, depending on what changes they make (and we already know that they do want to make changes), and personally? I would hold judgement until I saw what changes they are. When people are upset, and annoyed at changes, often they are emotionally motivated, which is important for those of us, whose objections may be more ideological or grounded in something more, to take note of, because it also means over longer stretches of time, people can become more apathetic. To put it another way, if future Heirlooms removed FOMO aspects (well some), made them 50% cheaper. Removed Regal Aya from the equation (and the pricing aspect), you don't think you will see a lot more positive sentiment from people? Popular Youtubers/Twitch CC's talking about how DE listened and fixed the situation? Again though, I wouldn't personally say no, if they did as you suggest and just made all new Heirlooms Deluxe skins with as cheap pricing aka Mesa and Volt situation, and all that that entails. If they did, I'd remember this conversation and fist pump the air and be glad I was wrong. Those skins are sick, if I could get them and others for Plat... but... I don't think there will be the same levels of negativity and animosity that some project, unless the changes they plan on making don't actually make changes to one or some of the points I addressed earlier. Ideally and realistically... hopefully multiple of the issues I pointed out, ideally, ideally? All of them, but eh, I also can't see that realistically happening either (but again, would be more than happy to be wrong).