26 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

When PGI put out this announcement (https://mwomercs.com...arch-8-4-pm-pdt) I as very, very disappointed and immediately cancelled the $120 of pre-orders I had lined up. The PGI staff member who handled the refund was extremely courteous. I uninstalled MWO, stopped following Russ on Twitter and started playing some other games that I wanted to catch up on.

I'm guessing that I wasn't the only person to do so as within couple of days PGI started changing their minds: https://twitter.com/...310846483910656

A few more days later we got the postponement announcement.

First of all let me say that I'm sorry for getting upset at people on the forum, I honestly think that had the skill tree gone ahead unchanged it would have meant the rapid demise of the game and possibly PGI with it. I like this game and want it to do well so I was getting very upset at it's possible loss.

Overall I think the skill tree is a good idea and a much needed improvement, plenty of players made excellent suggestions for fine tuning it but it feels like they fell on deaf ears.

I sincerely think that PGI needs to listen to players more, we had to resort to getting refunds in order to make them listen to us. If they'd paid attention to the forum and the feedback they were getting, and had responded to it, then no-one would have lost out. I'm only out some pre-order bonuses but PGI has lost the trust of a bunch of players and that's something that's going to keep on biting them.

[Athom83]

They can listen to the players better when they're not being sent mixed messages. A way to get the thoughts from all (most) of their players (and not just the ones on the forums) is to put a poll system in the game Star Conflict style.

[soapyfrog]

I suspect the volume of pre-order cancellations constituted the clearest possible message.

Honestly my wallet is still closed until they come up with a final plan for the skill tree, so they should come back with a new proposal sooner rather than later.

[l33tworks]

Athom83, on 17 March 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

They can listen to the players better when they're not being sent mixed messages. A way to get the thoughts from all (most) of their players (and not just the ones on the forums) is to put a poll system in the game Star Conflict style.

For once in mwos history Ther"re not being sent mixed messages. Literally 80% of players do not want to be forced to take nodes the dont want aka they want a linear system.

https://mwomercs.com...have-consensus/

The ones that are not on the forums wouldnt understand what they are voting on, and even then if asked do you want to be forced to take skill you dont want do you think they will vote yes or no. The in game votes will be for linear tree too.

[Reno Blade]

... so you are back now, installed MWO and preordered again after the announcement, i hope?
Then you would be as eager to jump "in" as you were to jump "out" because of the ST designs.

I find this a very rude and unprefessional way, very much like blackmailing in my opinion.

[soapyfrog]

This game is a service and if I don't like the service why the heck would I pay for it? How is that blackmail? Are the 7 billion people not playing MWO at all also blackmailing it??

Skill tree has not been finalized so I will wait until I see the final design, thank you very much.

Edited by soapyfrog, 18 March 2017 - 06:07 AM.

[Jubblator]

l33tworks, on 17 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

For once in mwos history Ther"re not being sent mixed messages. Literally 80% of players do not want to be forced to take nodes the dont want aka they want a linear system.

https://mwomercs.com...have-consensus/

The ones that are not on the forums wouldnt understand what they are voting on, and even then if asked do you want to be forced to take skill you dont want do you think they will vote yes or no. The in game votes will be for linear tree too.

Lol are you kidding me? 284 people (the amount that voted) are NOT 80% of the game pop...And wow are you making a bunch of assumptions out of thin air...who said that everyone would be for a linear tree, seriously? This is one of the reasons people ******* panic, they pick out stuff and imagine stats and everyones opinion, then go on to yell it all over the forums like the holy gospel.
Did you also call a huge chunk of the population here stupid by saying "The ones that are not on the forums wouldnt understand what they are voting on, " ...you need to take a nice long look at yourself.

Had i known the launch of the skill tree wasnt a sure thing i would be more vocal on the forums, who knew.

To soapyfrog:

I think we have differing opinions on this skill tree launch because i was gonna buy like crazy when the skill tree was gonna hit (actually started). I was not alone. What they did was imo not having the understanding that doing NOTHING and pulling back a launch date like this is WAY worse, then launching and patching refinements.
So what if you would have to endure some discomfort initially due to a suboptimal design, no big change will be perfect to start with.
If they had launched they would have had to improve the system, now they can hold it back indefinitely. Also its not like you were not going to get full refund of whatever, in a way or another. It would have just taken a bit of time, MEANWHILE they would have a much larger pool of data to look at to improve the tree.
Until players test it for real, there will be things that slip through the net.

On the PTS, what you had at best 300 players (might have been way less)?

Now there is also uncertainty about the pricing model, since we dont know when the skill tree launches (if it will stay the same or if they will sell mechs 1 and 1), so i bet fewer people will buy mechs now (i know i sure as hell will wait now).

If you dont see how seriously bad and discouraging the skill tree is to new players, hence many dont even attempt to get into the game, then you have played to long. This is a huge chunk of potential customers just poof gone.

If you dont realize you pretty much helped screw over PGI (they are to blame as well of course), because they lost out on influx of new/returning people (paying at that), then im sorry for you and us.
Especially since the skill tree has no clear release date.

My only hope is that you were right, in my mind right now this was a colossal mistake that will hurt this game in the long run (if there is any long run). Because you seem to have a much larger cash investment into the game then me, imo you are not safeguarding that investment well.

Edited by Jubblator, 18 March 2017 - 10:46 PM.

[soapyfrog]

I'm sorry why is the skill tree bad and discouraging? Far more popular games get by with a lot less.

Skill tree is irrelevant if you can't figure out how to have fun just playing the game... And it's also irrelevant how good or bad or optimal or suboptimal it is if it bankrupts PGIs biggest customers.

You think people would flock to thus game because it has 220 skill nodes, a thing never before seen in battletech or any mechwarrior game?? BS. It was about to cause the biggest exodus from the game since launch.

Just imagine if PGI had priced this properly... The we'd both be happy (or... In my case, simply not angry).

[tokumboh]

Jubblator, on 18 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

Lol are you kidding me? 284 people (the amount that voted) are NOT 80% of the game pop...And wow are you making a bunch of assumptions out of thin air...who said that everyone would be for a linear tree, seriously? This is one of the reasons people ******* panic, they pick out stuff and imagine stats and everyones opinion, then go on to yell it all over the forums like the holy gospel.
Did you also call a huge chunk of the population here stupid by saying "The ones that are not on the forums wouldnt understand what they are voting on, " ...you need to take a nice long look at yourself.

Had i known the launch of the skill tree wasnt a sure thing i would be more vocal on the forums, who knew.

To soapyfrog:

I think we have differing opinions on this skill tree launch because i was gonna buy like crazy when the skill tree was gonna hit (actually started). I was not alone. What they did was imo not having the understanding that doing NOTHING and pulling back a launch date like this is WAY worse, then launching and patching refinements.
So what if you would have to endure some discomfort initially due to a suboptimal design, no big change will be perfect to start with.
If they had launched they would have had to improve the system, now they can hold it back indefinitely. Also its not like you were not going to get full refund of whatever, in a way or another. It would have just taken a bit of time, MEANWHILE they would have a much larger pool of data to look at to improve the tree.
Until players test it for real, there will be things that slip through the net.

On the PTS, what you had at best 300 players (might have been way less)?

Now there is also uncertainty about the pricing model, since we dont know when the skill tree launches (if it will stay the same or if they will sell mechs 1 and 1), so i bet fewer people will buy mechs now (i know i sure as hell will wait now).

If you dont see how seriously bad and discouraging the skill tree is to new players, hence many dont even attempt to get into the game, then you have played to long. This is a huge chunk of potential customers just poof gone.

If you dont realize you pretty much helped screw over PGI (they are to blame as well of course), because they lost out on influx of new/returning people (paying at that), then im sorry for you and us.
Especially since the skill tree has no clear release date.

My only hope is that you were right, in my mind right now this was a colossal mistake that will hurt this game in the long run (if there is any long run). Because you seem to have a much larger cash investment into the game then me, imo you are not safeguarding that investment well.

The reality is that PGI do not consult the population much at all. The consult the competitive players, the streamers and the big youtuber video makers but I have never had a community outreach questionnaire for example. So what you have is basically hearsay.

My second problem is their testing is completely unscientific. Forstly the PTS server is pretty much empty I managed 6 games in the weeks that the server was up. Iresorted to playing in battlezone on the academy to test defensive skills. many people have said that the PTS games resorted to brawls almost immediately as is the nature of a small team versus small team match. whereas most maps on the live server the brawl is often a mop up operation not a central theme to the battle, so I think that we will never have a good test of the skill tree until it goes live or PGI does a Skill tree weekend whereby they suspend the live server and use the PTS server and gives everyone that plays 25 games over the weekend 25Million C bills and 2500 XP or some such enticement.

it is because they do not have enough people on PTS and they do not encourage it with any incentive that it does not attract people. Just think of the fact we have a free stuff to get now with the lucky charm event seems to have drawn people out.

As to the skill tree itself. it was a clash of philosophies as I understood it. The bulk of the community wanted a simple system they did not mind things different items being more expensive that is the case already what many opposed was the idea that to get an expensive thing you had to (using Russ and Chris's own words) invest in filler. People turned around. I personally would prefer a linear tree with different costings per node and I feel that is what most of the objections on the tree design was about. Now if we were just arguing about which items should eb in the filler nodes then I think we could have gone through the release but that was not the issue. The second point was pretty obvious. PGI equated progress made on the current skill system would be compensated by the fact that people would have the money back from modules. The did not understand that was not the case even though they kept saying that they had the data to say that was not the case. it turns out that people whom had played the game heavily and bought lots of mechs often with real cash were going to lose out in terms of progress so I hope that will be sorted out. Again this was one of philosophy and again releasing and then try to change the philosophy so drastically would hve been a disaster.

I hope they come out with a simpler tree, less of a maze but allow people clear choices listening to the podcast (which by the way was a PR disaster before the 'cheapskate' remark) Chris tried to explain what they did and why they did it. The what they did was rather clear they wanted the idea that nodes to the good stuff represented an investment but rationale behind it all feel into contradiction almost immediately in one sentence he said the aim was to stop min maxing, and then he said it was to stop people spreading skill point on every tree (so he wanted to stop both min maxing and spreading skill point around the trees.

They need to have a coherent philosophy for the tree and to be honest they broke their own rational when the first released the Skill tree with individual weapon tree since they were supposed to be trying to stop boating

Personally if they had released so1omah tree system I think we would have been better off. It was simpler needed less clicks and it was less of how do I traverse the maze to get what I want than a concentration on what do I really need. In fairness there is a hierarchy of need depending on the type of mech you have and the style of play you use for that mech. So for me If my light mech can do over 120kmph then speed tweak is a nice to have but sensor range and extra UAV is going to be key as is radar dep if I don't have ECM. If I am legged running at 50Kmph rather than 40 is not going to make much of a difference unless I am trying out run a stock urbie, I am going to get caught. so I'd spend the points somewhere else. I also think there were too many points for not much gain. at best you had on weapons 5% cooldown on top of 10% cooldown 15% heat containment all of which were obscured by filler nodes so if you were just spending 5 skill point it was difficult to see progress. Yet you win a game with the old skill tree you get 5% cooldown which was clearly beneficial. So the tree was pretty bad for new comers not only was it difficult to understand but it did not give you feedback on progress

[C E Dwyer]

Reno Blade, on 18 March 2017 - 03:35 AM, said:

... so you are back now, installed MWO and preordered again after the announcement, i hope?
Then you would be as eager to jump "in" as you were to jump "out" because of the ST designs.

I find this a very rude and unprefessional way, very much like blackmailing in my opinion.

I guess it's rude for the rich guy to cancel a sports car from Ferrari, because while building it they decided to put a Ford Engine in it, weeks before it was shipped out

[MechaBattler]

PGI thinking they could take away mastered from the whale population's massive mech collections. That was a huge huge huge folly. Even if they kept lowering the price. The only one that people would have accepted was free. Even if these people weren't going to use a third of those mechs. They still worked to master those mechs and be proud of their collection.

I think this is the only valid reason for the postponement of the Skill Trees.

But then of course the bittervets woke up from their slumbers and started coming out of the hills. Bent on looting and pillage! Or just flaming and shetposting. Blew it up as the whole skill tree was bad. Touting that one guy's skill tree vid as the second coming.

Edited by MechaBattler, 19 March 2017 - 09:43 AM.

[Athom83]

l33tworks, on 17 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

For once in mwos history Ther"re not being sent mixed messages. Literally 80% of players do not want to be forced to take nodes the dont want aka they want a linear system.

https://mwomercs.com...have-consensus/

1) The wording of the question made more people lean to "no". "Should players be forced to pick unrelated skills" does not accurately describe the skill system as is most recent.
2) That is 200 votes out of thousands of people that play the game, nowhere near "80% of players".
3) The question only relates to getting completely unrelated skills within the same branch. In a properly done tree all skills are related in a branch, linear or not.
3.5) There are linear trees that force you to pick unrelated skills to get where you want.
4) Only 25% of those who voted said they wanted a linear tree, With another 25% saying to mix a linear tree with a non-linear tiered tree.

l33tworks, on 17 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

The ones that are not on the forums wouldnt understand what they are voting on, and even then if asked do you want to be forced to take skill you dont want do you think they will vote yes or no. The in game votes will be for linear tree too.

The stupidity of this statement makes my head hurt. It's like all the mass media saying "Trump will lose massively. No chance for him to win." all the way up to voting day.

Jubblator, on 18 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

If you dont see how seriously bad and discouraging the skill tree is to new players, hence many dont even attempt to get into the game, then you have played to long. This is a huge chunk of potential customers just poof gone.

Probably the biggest reason I don't spend any money. Why bother buying and spending MC to purchase a mech when I have to buy 2 others just to get it "competitive". As is, I just buy a single mech with C-Bills and play around with it or sell it for another mech if I don't care for it.

Jubblator, on 18 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

If you dont realize you pretty much helped screw over PGI (they are to blame as well of course), because they lost out on influx of new/returning people (paying at that), then im sorry for you and us.
Especially since the skill tree has no clear release date.

They wont realize it for a few reasons;
1) "PGI can only do bad"
2) "My ideas are always best"
3) "Things I don't like are bad"
4) "Everyone who disagrees with me just don't know what they're talking about"
4.5) "They need to be educated in why I'm right"

Jubblator, on 18 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

Because you seem to have a much larger cash investment into the game then me, imo you are not safeguarding that investment well.

Because throwing money at the game gives you executive decision on the progress of the game and not supporting the developers in progressing their game how they envision it.

[soapyfrog]

I'll say it again; if they had made the skill tree affordable for PGI's best and most loyal supporters, it would have been in the last patch without really much in the way of other changes.

Given that they KNEW that they were going to drop new tech on us that would inevitably be a huge c-bill sink, it is baffling why they tried to attach such a high c-bill cost to the skill tree. Honestly I am pretty sure they could have made it completely c-bill free AND given everyone a full module refund, secure in the knowledge that we were going to blow all those c-bills on new tech anyway before long. Plus we would have bought the new mechpack without a 2nd thought.

ANyway like I said I am ok with a nominal cost for skill tree even though I think things that cost xp shouldn't also cost c-bills and vice versa (there is really no need for such double dipping and it is unattractive game design), but it really needs to be low, and moreover they will save themselves a lot of future headache if they make NODES free, but attach the cost (whatever it might be) to skill POINTS.

Firstly this puts an understandable cap on how much time and money it takes to fully outfit a mech instead of the highly variable system they were proposing, secondly if and when they do heavy balance passes they won't have repeated nightmares of refunding the entire tree.

Well that's my 2 cents anyway. Like I said there are a lot of players like me who would have been basically ok with the skill tree with all it's warts if they didn't try to fleece us for it... as it turns out, completely unnecessarily.

[Znail]

I don't think they have to make it totally free as if it cost 10'000 for each node so wouldn't it be a problem for anyone really. But I agree that they were kind of overthinking it as the new tech will be a massive c-bill sink, espicially for those with lots of mechs. Wich I guess leads to the problem with those with very few mechs and full sets of modules again. But I guess they could combine it with a discount on mech bays and hope people with excess c-bills gets some more mechs.

At the end of the day, people who doesn't like to buy new mechs will never have a lack of c-bills anyway, so I don't see how they can get around that one.

Edited by Znail, 19 March 2017 - 10:32 PM.

[tokumboh]

Znail, on 19 March 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

I don't think they have to make it totally free as if it cost 10'000 for each node so wouldn't it be a problem for anyone really. But I agree that they were kind of overthinking it as the new tech will be a massive c-bill sink, espicially for those with lots of mechs. Wich I guess leads to the problem with those with very few mechs and full sets of modules again. But I guess they could combine it with a discount on mech bays and hope people with excess c-bills gets some more mechs.

At the end of the day, people who doesn't like to buy new mechs will never have a lack of c-bills anyway, so I don't see how they can get around that one.

I think the problem was that they had a narrative which they did not check and indeed decided not to listen to
irrespective of the merits of the skill tree the price came up when people analysed the cost at Mechcon. That is why I think this has been a problem when the saw the costs it was 9.1M Cbills and then we were told no that was just a placeholder and it wasn't it was the actual value. Noe PGI must have made a deterniation as to what the price should be and it is that which is why I think there is a problem the community looked at the cost and then looked at what they were going to get back and there was such a huge disparity that no amount of tinkering could solve it.

The other problem was the tree itself. Now let me be clear I hate the rule of three but I don't think that the tree in its current incarnation can be modified easily without reseting everything everytime so that is why I prefer so1omahs tree which is simple and direct

You can limit the number of nodes we can take but make each node more meaningful even chris call the nodes fillers which means that they are unnecessary it would be an easy move to do

[Athom83]

tokumboh, on 20 March 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

I think the problem was that they had a narrative which they did not check and indeed decided not to listen to
irrespective of the merits of the skill tree the price came up when people analysed the cost at Mechcon. That is why I think this has been a problem when the saw the costs it was 9.1M Cbills and then we were told no that was just a placeholder and it wasn't it was the actual value. Noe PGI must have made a deterniation as to what the price should be and it is that which is why I think there is a problem the community looked at the cost and then looked at what they were going to get back and there was such a huge disparity that no amount of tinkering could solve it.

They looked at the average C-Bills gained back from refunding modules across all players and balanced the cost of the tree around it. It didn't take into account the extremes though, and that is where the "issues" lie. Some players got back hundreds of millions to billions of C-Bills, while others only got a few million (both old and new players).

tokumboh, on 20 March 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

The other problem was the tree itself. Now let me be clear I hate the rule of three but I don't think that the tree in its current incarnation can be modified easily without reseting everything everytime so that is why I prefer so1omahs tree which is simple and direct

Personally, I don't like his tree for various reasons. But I do agree the current version may be difficult to modify, add, or remove things without resetting progress. However, this problem can be solved by planing ahead somewhat, and combining like items. Ex; All constant beam lasers in one (Standard, Chemical, ER, Binary), all pulse in one (Pulse, X-Pulse, VS-Pulse), all directed energy (all PPCs, TSEMP, Plasma Cannon/Rifle, Flamer, Lava Gun), long range missiles (LRMs, Arrow IVs, Thunderbolts, iATM), medium range (MRMs, ATM, Rockets, NARC), short range missiles (SRMs, SSRMs,) {You could even combine the "short" and "medium" trees together}, "simple" ballistics (AC, HVAC, LBX, Sniper, Long Tom, Thumper), "advanced" ballistics (UACs, RACs, Caseless AC), and Gauss (Standard, Light, Heavy, HAG, SB Gauss). While having a few special case nodes that affect other like things like; Spread (LBX, SRMS, HAG), Charge (Gauss, RACs), and others.

tokumboh, on 20 March 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

You can limit the number of nodes we can take but make each node more meaningful even chris call the nodes fillers which means that they are unnecessary it would be an easy move to do

Honestly, if that "filler" was more meaningful and desirable then it wouldn't be considered "filler" anymore and therefore wouldn't need to be removed or limited. Also, they could add more "meaningful" (powerful) nodes that make you chose between the trees more.

[Dogstar]

>Then you would be as eager to jump "in" as you were to jump "out" because of the ST designs.
No, I've been bitten once now so I'm twice shy

>I find this a very rude and unprefessional way, very much like blackmailing in my opinion.
but what you said is the model of politeness then? I think not.

[tokumboh]

Athom83, on 20 March 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

They looked at the average C-Bills gained back from refunding modules across all players and balanced the cost of the tree around it. It didn't take into account the extremes though, and that is where the "issues" lie. Some players got back hundreds of millions to billions of C-Bills, while others only got a few million (both old and new players).

I think their answer pretty much said that they did look at the issue since it was clear from the original unveiling of the Skill Tree that people gasped at the pricing of the nodes. They pointed out that this was just a placeholder and clearly it was not. I am also surprised at the fact that they kept talking about having the data to back up their claims but never ever sharing it. I believe Russ's cheapskate comment was basically exasperation at the community not seeing things his way. Sure there were some people that had lots of modules but considering that it was basically a tip to swap them around and they were never fixed to come to a conclusion that there was huge reservoir of C bills for people to skill up their mechs was going to be a stretch just from experience

Speaking for myself I have 80+ mechs and 100 mech bays since I culled my poorer purchases to buy better mechs
I also have over 100 modules since I said I would make sure I have enough modules for FW when the special events come up like Battle of Tukayyid which was the only time I had fun playing FW so I knew I would not be so badly off. I think the reality is that tat the did not thing ahead and basically did not gather sufficient data. At one point people were emailing their account for Russ to look at since he seemed surprised at the reaction. That says they just did mine the data other than to work out the total amount of C bills in modules.

My view was it was poor data gathering and led to poor PR and a delay that could have avoided

Athom83, on 20 March 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Personally, I don't like his tree for various reasons. But I do agree the current version may be difficult to modify, add, or remove things without resetting progress. However, this problem can be solved by planing ahead somewhat, and combining like items. Ex; All constant beam lasers in one (Standard, Chemical, ER, Binary), all pulse in one (Pulse, X-Pulse, VS-Pulse), all directed energy (all PPCs, TSEMP, Plasma Cannon/Rifle, Flamer, Lava Gun), long range missiles (LRMs, Arrow IVs, Thunderbolts, iATM), medium range (MRMs, ATM, Rockets, NARC), short range missiles (SRMs, SSRMs,) {You could even combine the "short" and "medium" trees together}, "simple" ballistics (AC, HVAC, LBX, Sniper, Long Tom, Thumper), "advanced" ballistics (UACs, RACs, Caseless AC), and Gauss (Standard, Light, Heavy, HAG, SB Gauss). While having a few special case nodes that affect other like things like; Spread (LBX, SRMS, HAG), Charge (Gauss, RACs), and others.

As i said the issue I had with the tree was that it clearly had not considered the new weapon classes your classification would have been fine but that is not what we had it was simply put rubbish, poor engineering and somethign that would have needed to have been reset each technology upgrade

Athom83, on 20 March 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Honestly, if that "filler" was more meaningful and desirable then it wouldn't be considered "filler" anymore and therefore wouldn't need to be removed or limited. Also, they could add more "meaningful" (powerful) nodes that make you chose between the trees more.

Again I think they had a premise and stuck to it As i said the problem I had with the podcast was that Chris did explain what he did but why he did what he did contained so many contradictions that it had my head spinning. went back and listen to the podcast again and it was even worse. Someone on reddit summarised it perfectly and in the end I felt sorry for both Russ and Chris having to go on and do what was a PR car crash (even without the cheapskate remark)
his point about the filler was that was how they wanted the tree to work and they were not interested in more meaningful nodes since that did not promote the idea of having to make a 'choice'

[Jubblator]

Well you can be glad now since you wont get ANY c-bills as a refund when/if the skill tree launches, Russ said in podcast that they will be looking at other ways then refunds of c-bills to "retain the progress" that players made. So have fun with that, i personally thought we would get a full refund and bought more of them. I dont want progress on all mechs, i want my c-bills and a skill tree, then pay for the ones i actually play.
I dont know about you, but i wont be going back to mechs i dislike just because i didnt sell them, if they split up the "refund" across ALL my mechs, instead of giving me c-bills and exp refund directly, well then im gonna think its quite a shame.
Not everyone will be mastering all their mechs for no reason other then "having to do it". I dont play all my mechs either, more like 4-5 (having said that i dont own huge amounts of them, also for a reason...i dont buy them for collections sake, i buy the ones i think/know will be fun for me...lately failing hard, yes im looking at you Super Nova).

Edited by Jubblator, 21 March 2017 - 04:58 PM.

[Void Angel]

I'm sure it was the preorder cancellation tantrums - the extent of which you have no knowledge - instead of the reasoned responses of those of us who went out of our way to give constructive feedback. This must be the case because everyone knows that correlation doesn't just imply causation, it's what causation is - and of course no proof (or even the possibility of proof) is needed when a claim is made stridently enough. You, sir, are a genius.