Thoughts On Releasing The Aklato Prime And Dual Skana Prime [Please Be Civil And Constructive]

[AvengerGrim]

"We can't have Founder's weapons, therefore we should have a dual version of them"

 

That's what i got form OP's post... I really don't think it's a fix in any way, more like a sneaky way to get exactly what you want but in double! ...

[Bayle_Fire]

I don't mind not having exclusive founders items... But the fact that they get mastery out of the weapons pisses me off.

[Aggh]

"We can't have Founder's weapons, therefore we should have a dual version of them"

 

That's what i got form OP's post... I really don't think it's a fix in any way, more like a sneaky way to get exactly what you want but in double! ...

It's not a fix, it's just new content.  There's still no real reason not to do it.

[Yezzik]

Honestly, I think DE might need to start consolidating weapons (like have all the Bronco variants together as one item) because otherwise that weapon list is going to get crazy.

We've already got potential solutions in equalising Mastery or alternatively disabling Focus for PvP, but weapon consolidation could work for Mastery as well.

No need to lose any either; they'd just need to make the variants like skins and give the weapons themselves more Mastery.

All sorts of ideas...

[Mithie]

This is getting silly.  I think you're going to have to spell out for yourself.  Let's start out with this question: How is DE releasing Aklato prime and Dual Skana prime a breach of trust?

 

Because they would be releasing straight upgrades of tokens which we founders trusted would be unique at the time of paying 250 dollars.

[Aggh]

Because they would be releasing straight upgrades of tokens which we founders trusted would be unique at the time of paying 250 dollars.

There.  You might not have said it explicitly, but your thought process on this issue clearly hinges on your perception of what DE's promise of founder's item's exclusivity means.  If you can't understand that much, this conversation isn't worth continuing, since you're clearly willing to lie even to yourself for the sake of keeping your argument alive.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[Mithie]

There.  You might not have said it explicitly, but your thought process on this issue clearly hinges on your perception of what DE's promise of founder's item's exclusivity.  If you can't understand that much, this conversation isn't worth continuing.

No. Dex furis are exclusive.

 

Snipetron vandal is exclusive.

 

Braton vandal. Exclusive.

 

I have them. People don't. I don't mind DE releasing them to everyone.

 

What makes you think you are entitled to better versions of items I paid 250 dollars for for free?

Edited June 6, 2014 by mithie2

[Aggh]

No. Dex furis are exclusive.

 

Snipetron vandal is exclusive.

 

Braton vandal. Exclusive.

 

I have them. People don't. I don' mind DE releasing them to everyone.

 

What makes you think you are entitled to better versions of items I paid 250 dollars for for free?

That just means that you care about other exclusive items more than others.  It doesn't change the fact that your argument hinges on a poor understanding of what you were promised in terms of exclusivity on founders items.

 

What makes you think that DE has any kind of obligation towards you on weapons they never said would be exclusive to founders?  They never said they wouldn't release better versions or different variants.  All they ever said is that the founders items (excalibur prime, skana prime, and lato prime) would be exclusive.  No more, no less.

 

Also, dex furis was a limited time weapon.  It was never stated to be exclusive.  If it's not explicitly stated to be exclusive then it isn't.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[Alpha56]

Who cares?  New weapons are constantly getting introduced and mastery behind rank 8 means next to nothing.  There's also a chance that at least the skinned versions of some of those weapons will be reintroduced at one point or another.  With each increase in maximum mastery, the advantage of discontinued/exclusive weapon mastery gets smaller and smaller.

 

People who can't reach Rank 16 because some weapons were taken off the market without warning.

See the number of topic on these discontinued weapons.

It's not a big issue for the moment, but what if a system reliant on mastery is implemented ? 

There are not exclusive weapons. 

[Mithie]

That just means that you care about other exclusive items more than others.  It doesn't change the fact that your argument hinges on a poor understanding of what you were promised in terms of exclusivity on founders items.

 

What makes you think that DE has any kind of obligation towards you on weapons they never said would be exclusive?

 

What makes you think DE has any obligation towards you on releasing weapons they never said they would release?

[Aggh]

What makes you think DE has any obligation towards you on releasing weapons they never said they would release?

I haven't made any such claims.  You're the only one trying to create rules surrounding the hypothetical release of these weapons.

 

 

People who can't reach Rank 16 because some weapons were taken off the market without warning.

See the number of topic on these discontinued weapons.

It's not a big issue for the moment, but what if a system reliant on mastery is implemented ? 

There are not exclusive weapons. 

They'll be able to get to rank 16 eventually anyways and it's not like one rank will be a huge competitive advantage of some kind in any mastery reliant system.  Whether it's a problem or not is reliant on too many hypotheticals.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[Mithie]

I haven't made any such claims.  You're the only one trying to create rules surrounding the hypothetical release of these weapons.

 

 

They'll be able to get to rank 16 eventually anyways and it's not like one rank will be a huge competitive advantage of some kind in any mastery reliant system.  Whether it's a problem or not is reliant on too many hypotheticals.

 

I'm OKAY with DE releasing Aklato Prime and Dual Skana Prime, as long as they are not straight upgrades to the Lato Prime and Skana Prime.

 

You're the one trying to argue that you should be entitled to straight upgrades to grandmaster founder's weapons without shelling out 250 dollars.

You're going to have to explain that one first.

Edited June 6, 2014 by mithie2

[Aggh]

I'm OKAY with DE releasing Aklato Prime and AkSkana Prime, as long as they are not straight upgrades to the Lato Prime and Skana Prime.

 

That's a rule of your own creation.  You're setting conditions to the release of these weapons based on an entitlement that you believe you have as a founder.  This despite the fact that DE made no promises to founders regarding the release of the Aklato prime or the Dual skana prime.

 

Tell me, where is are the AKlato prime and the Dual skana prime in here?

 

 

I can't seem to find them.  In fact, it appears that you never paid for them.  So why exactly would DE have to tip toe around you to release them?

 

 

You're the one trying to argue that you should be entitled to straight upgrades to grandmaster founder's weapons without shelling out 250 dollars.

You're going to have to explain that one first.

 

Again, I've never said that.  I've even explicitly said I could care less whether I get these weapons or not:

 

 

And to be clear, I could care less whether I get any of these weapons or not, if I had seen the value in further founders levels I would have bought them.  The reason why I am taking this argument up is because of the filthy irrational sense of entitlement that many founders are exhibiting in this thread.  If your suggestion wasn't based in that I'd be completely fine with it.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[Mithie]

That's a rule of your own creation.  You're setting conditions to the release of these weapons based on an entitlement that you believe you have as a founder.  This despite the fact that DE made no promises to founders regarding the release of the Aklato prime or the Dual skana prime.

 

 

 

 

Again, releasing aklato prime and the dual skana prime doesn't violate any promises. It violates the spirit of those promises, without the extra stipulations I provided, at least to me. You can tell me my opinions are invalid or my opinions are wrong; but at the end of the day, I paid money to have the privilege of holding those opinions while you haven't. So think about that.

 

I'm not calling out DE to do anything. I'm not a lawyer here. I'm not debating the lettering of the founder contract, I'm debating the spirit of the founder contract. 

 

Look we're going in circles. Either you accept my point of view or you don't. It's got no bearing on DE's decisions. So rather than waste our mutual time, I'm just going to drop it.

 

It's my opinion. It's what I, as a grandmaster founder, think of your suggestion. Take it or leave it.

 

 

 

Again, I've never said that.  I've even explicitly said I could care less whether I get these weapons or not.

 

Then why are you even in this argument if you don't care about the outcome?

Edited June 6, 2014 by mithie2

[Aggh]

Again, releasing aklato prime and the dual skana prime doesn't violate any promises. It violates the spirit of those promises, at least to me. You can tell me my opinions are invalid or my opinions are wrong; but at the end of the day, I paid money to have the privilege of holding those opinions while you haven't. So think about that.

I'm not calling out DE to do anything. I'm not a lawyer here. I'm not debating the lettering of the founder contract, I'm debating the spirit of the founder contract. 

 

Look we're going in circles. Either you accept my point of view or you don't. It's got no bearing on DE's decisions. So rather than waste our mutual time, I'm just going to drop it.

 

It's my opinion. It's what I, as a grandmaster founder, think of your suggestion. Take it or leave it.

 

 

 

We're going around in circles because you're unable to own up to your own words and the very basis of your own argument.  When someone refutes the core of your argument, you give up, you don't continue to lie in their face about it when your own words say the complete opposite. 

 

The spirit of the contract?  Can you get any more ridiculous?  Contracts are designed specifically so they don't have to rely on emotional constructs like the perceived spirit of the agreement.  Especially in the case of a purchase of a good or service.  DE clearly stated what you would get out of your purchase and you accepted it by tendering them payment.  There is no wiggle room on the issue.

 

Way to cop out.

 

Then why are you even in this argument if you don't care about the argument?

Because it would be bad for the game and the community if poorly formed opinions like yours were taken seriously.  I may not care about the weapons themselves, but the attitudes behind your opinion on them are abhorrent.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[AvengerGrim]

That's a rule of your own creation.  You're setting conditions to the release of these weapons based on an entitlement that you believe you have as a founder.  This despite the fact that DE made no promises to founders regarding the release of the Aklato prime or the Dual skana prime.

So you wouldn't see a problem with DE releasing a dual version of the Founder's weapons, fair enough, i personally think it would be a $&*^ move to do that but whatever, i'm not a Founder, however, you really wouldn't see a problem with DE releasing a dual version of the Founder's weapons that is better than the originals either? That wouldn't be a $&*^ move, it would literally be a "F*** You" by DE addressed to the Founders, like saying "Hey, you paid God knows how much for some crappy but prestigious items and today, well, we are releasing the same items in dual form and overall better than your crappy version, for everyone and for free, of course, enjoy!" There is no rule against that, you are right, but i would be highly unethical...

Edited June 6, 2014 by AvengerGrim

[Mithie]

We're going around in circles because you're own up to your own words and the very basis of your own argument.  When someone refutes the core of your argument, you give up, you don't continue to lie in their face about it when your own words say the complete opposite.  The spirit of the contract?  Can you get any more ridiculous?

 

Way to cop out.

 

 

 

No. We're going around in circles because I've made my points, and you constantly try to misrepresent them by brute force while making no effort, in good faith, of coming to terms with them or even acknowledging them for what they are - my opinions.

 

Yes, there is such a thing as the spirit of the contract - or an intention of the contract. Trademark trolling, for example, is perfectly legal, but in many cases, it violates the spirit of the law.

 

 

I'm bowing out because I don't think we're getting anywhere. At the end of the day, I didn't come here to have an argument. I came here to express an opinion, and I have. 

 

Take it or leave it.

 

Because it would be bad for the game and the community if poorly formed opinions like yours were taken seriously.  I may not care about the weapons themselves, but the attitudes behind your opinion on them are abhorrent.

 

Explain to me then what makes my attitude behind my opinion so abhorrent, because so far all you've done here is debate semantics with me.

Edited June 6, 2014 by mithie2

[RespectTheInternet]

Sooo this seems more like a interpretation argument now than anything.

 

One hand, we have strict interpretation of the "Founder's Contract" which demands that DE gives the Founder's everything that was displayed/written, no more or less.

 

On the other hand, we have the Founder's, who argue that the "Intent" of the contract is that they (The founders) will have an exclusive object in game, in every shape and form of that object.

[Aggh]

So you wouldn't see a problem with DE releasing a dual version of the Founder's weapons, fair enough, i personally think it would be a $&*^ move to do that but whatever, i'm not a Founder, however, you really wouldn't see a problem with DE releasing a dual version of the Founder's weapons that is better than the originals either? That wouldn't be a $&*^ move, it would literally be a "F*** You" by DE addressed to the Founders, like saying "Hey, you paid God knows how much for some crappy but prestigious items and today, well, we are releasing the same items in dual form and overall better than your crappy version, for everyone and for free, of course, enjoy!" There is no rule against that, you are right, but i would be highly unethical...

 

The founders weapons have always been garbage.  They paid that money for those weapons (with a very clear understanding of how bad they are) and heavily discounted plat (there was no way to get plat cheaper at the time). 

 

By that logic we shouldn't have ever had login plat discounts or allowed non founders into the design council.  For some reason founders have had no problem with those additions. 

 

 

 

Sooo this seems more like a interpretation argument now than anything.

 

One hand, we have strict interpretation of the "Founder's Contract" which demands that DE gives the Founder's everything that was displayed/written, no more or less.

 

On the other hand, we have the Founder's, who argue that the "Intent" of the contract is that they (The founders) will have an exclusive object in game, in every shape and form of that object.

The problem with that is that is not how DE has ever operated.  Discussions on other weapons' exclusivity has made it very clear that if a weapon or item has not been explicitly said to be exclusive, then it will not be made exclusive.

 

Look to the brakk and frost prime.  Even the Dex furis is technically not an exclusive item (the post on it said it was a limited time item).  When items are exclusive they have used very specific language (ie the word exclusive) to say that specific item is exclusive.

 

People just seem to want to milk every last advantage they can get out of their payment.  It's greedy and DE needs to cut them off already.  They've already gotten what they payed for.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Aggh

[Mithie]

The founders weapons have always been garbage.  They paid that money for those weapons and heavily discounted plat (there was no way to get plat cheaper at the time).  By that logic we shouldn't have ever had plat login discounts or allowed non founders into the design council.  For some reason founders have had no problem with those additions.

 

 

Believe it or not, not everything in the founder's package is of equal value. Believe it or not, different people have different things which they value. Some founders value the plat discount. Some founders value the prime weapons. Some founders value the name drops in the solar systems. 

 

The problem is you can't tell people what they should and shouldn't value. They have it. They own it. They decide for themselves how they value what they have paid for, in any capacity or allocation they want. I don't think my founder's weapons are garbage. I think they're aesthetically pleasing and quite fun to use. See, I have the right to have that opinion because I paid for the privilege of having that opinion. You telling people what they paid for are garbage - that's your opinion - and that opinion holds less weight because you haven't paid for the product you're trying to put a value on.

 

This is not a court. DE is not a judge. Just because something is feasible and legally viable doesn't mean it has to be done the way you want it to. 

 

People just seem to want to milk every last advantage they can get out of their payment.  It's greedy and DE needs to cut them off already.  They've already gotten what they payed for.

 

"Milking". Really. That's the language you want to use for people who believed in the game enough to shell out 250 bucks for it in its infancy. "Milking".

Okay.

Edited June 6, 2014 by mithie2

[Aggh]

Thought we were done?  *Phasers set to ignore*

[Mithie]

Thought we were done?  *Phasers set to ignore*

Now who's copping out?

[sedy25]

With permission from [DE]Drew to re open this thread, I'm making the simple request of keep this discussion civil, constructive, and polite.

 

Lato and skana prime are both founder weapons that will not be release again as DE pretty much signed an agreement with the founders that they would stay exclusive and never be released again, this did not include the akimbo and dual variants of the weapons, Aklato and Dual skana, therefore, these could be released and no one would be able to decline such a thing as these are not part of the founder exclusive items, these could have similar build requirements to the basic dual skana, and the materials to build two standard latos, mixed in with prime parts generic requirements of 10 orokin cells or argon crystals. this would be entirely acceptable as a way to fix people's issues with the exclusive weapons from so long ago. 

 

I myself do not care for either of these weapons, nor the akimbo/dual variants, the discussion is general and is to spark a debate, please accept the apology I offer for the state of the last thread, now lets have a clean, constructive discussion about these items.

 

*I will request censorship for rude behaviour and insults.*

 

edit: typo

I don't like your idea, please... Keep it to yourself.

 

*edit: Infact your idea is so ridiculously thoughtless, I might have to laugh.

Edited June 6, 2014 by frostybe3r

[Aggh]

I don't like your idea, please... Keep it to yourself.

 

*edit: Infact your idea is so ridiculously thoughtless, I might have to laugh.

I think you might want to get a dictionary and read the first sentence in the post you're responding to.

[Instinction]

No.

/thread