More “paths” to legendary gear...

[STIHL.2489]

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> This thread has 12k views, nearing 700 comments, yet still no acknowledgement from a dev.

 

This is not really true, I think either in a video interview or reddit, they made it clear that they were not going to do anything about this issue at all and that they were happy with the way things are.

 

So beyond petty squabbling, there is no reason or point to these posts at all, on any level. To me it's more akin to watching a train wreck, I should stop, I should walk away, I know it's pointless and that it won't end good.

 

So to anyone reading this topic that may have had a glimmer of hope that maybe someday Anet will put in a PvE path other then Raids to get Legendary Armor.. _Not Gonna Happen_.

 

Deal with what is. If you are cool with that, then game on, if that is a deal breaker for you, then move on.

 

Nothing is going to change.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > So let me hold your hand on this one simple easy to grasp point. _Your demographic is not as profitable as mine_.

>

> So let me hold your hand on this:

> A + B > A when B > 0. My demographic creates non-zero profits. See where I'm heading with that?

 

You are heading where you have always been heading in this topic, circles that make no sense and have no point.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > So let me hold your hand on this one simple easy to grasp point. _Your demographic is not as profitable as mine_.

> >

> > So let me hold your hand on this:

> > A + B > A when B > 0. My demographic creates non-zero profits. See where I'm heading with that?

>

> You are heading where you have always been heading in this topic, circles that make no sense and have no point.

>

>

 

OK, doing it even slower:

 

It doesn't matter which part of the population generates more profits. Are you with me?

It doesn't matter, because the goal is to have both of them. Still with me?

The goal is to have both, because the combined profits are higher.

 

Therefore, your previous statement is... let's say "short-sighted". That's OK, everybody makes mistakes. What's not OK is to pretend they didn't and to beat around the bush with more *ad hominem*. Typical, yes. But not OK.

[Annaveil.5201]

You know, I was against the idea of legendary gear coming from anywhere but high tier, endgame sources if only because those are the only real areas where it would actually be a useful addition to your tool kit and not just epeen floofing.

 

But as we get more elite specs and with Fractals being a little more complicated and difficult as they add new ones, I wouldn't mind seeing a Fractal version of legendary armor.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> Well lets go with this, If they wanted to keep us **both**, then it would be a _smart move_ to put in other paths so we **both** can get the same stuff..

 

Except not. Your "demographic" has enough content to enjoy. What the game lacked was content for the hardcore players. Now it has, so it can support both. However, offering an easy way undermines the incentive to do it the hard way. Which means less people pursuing these goals, which means more time to find a party, which means even less people bothering with it, which means even longer times and so forth until you end up with dead content. And because it is precisely the content required to keep *my* demographic in the game, it would simply quit. So no, it most definitely is NOT a smart move.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > Well lets go with this, If they wanted to keep us **both**, then it would be a _smart move_ to put in other paths so we **both** can get the same stuff..

>

> Except not. Your "demographic" has enough content to enjoy. What the game lacked was content for the hardcore players. Now it has, so it can support both. However, offering an easy way undermines the incentive to do it the hard way. Which means less people pursuing these goals, which means more time to find a party, which means even less people bothering with it, which means even longer times and so forth until you end up with dead content. And because it is precisely the content required to keep *my* demographic in the game, it would simply quit. So no, it most definitely is NOT a smart move.

 

So you feel entitled to your own special content, and since _you just made it clear that both groups cannot be both equally rewarded_, one will have to do without, and be made to feel like second class citizens.

 

Which brings us back full circle to the whole "My group is more profitable then yours"

 

Yah.. well wish I could say it's been fun, but hasn't, I am done dealing with you talking in circles.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > So let me hold your hand on this one simple easy to grasp point. _Your demographic is not as profitable as mine_.

>

> So let me hold your hand on this:

> A + B > A when B > 0. My demographic creates non-zero profits. See where I'm heading with that?

Nowhere. If you think even for a moment about what is really happening here, you will realize that your bad attempt at math has nothing to do with the situation.

(hint: you forgot to cover the _changes_ to A and B )

 

BTW: Stihl has a point here. Not necessarily about him personally being a greater loss for anet (since i have no idea how much was he spending), but about the demographics in general. A lot of research shows, that in general, barring p2w stuff (which GW2 doesn't have) it's not the most hardcore players that are the greatest income source for microtransaction-funded games, but the so-called dedicated casuals (players that have a lot of time to invest in the games, but whose playing style is more casual).

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> It doesn't matter which part of the population generates more profits. Are you with me?

> It doesn't matter, because the goal is to have both of them. Still with me?

> The goal is to have both, because the combined profits are higher.

Not if the loss from one part of the population is greater than gain due to the other. And i'm not so sure that the gain from the raid crowd is all that great - hardcores aren't great buyers (unless, again, it's about p2w).

 

 

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

Great theoretical discussions people ... I see no consideration for the practical implementation of legendaries outside of raids. This isn't a university exam. Anyone have a compelling reason for Anet to spend their time making legendaries available in multiple paths? "To be fair" really doesn't seem to cut it.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I see no consideration for the practical implementation of legendaries outside of raids.

Meaning?

Edit: ah..

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Anyone have a compelling reason for Anet to spend their time making legendaries available in multiple paths?

I must assume that you have not read this thread (or any previous ones) at all, because there were a lot of reasons in there. Certainly no less compelling than the ones used in threads that asked for raids before they got implemented.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > I see no consideration for the practical implementation of legendaries outside of raids.

> Meaning?

>

>

 

Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

 

I can't help but be brought back to the discussion about angry players that thought craftable precursors didn't suit their play either, because it didn't meet their expectations for effort and cost ... what makes you think that even if there are other paths, they will be 'fair' to players? I mean, if the whole argument is that Anet should do it because it's fair ... what will you do when the inevitable "it's not implemented fairly" happen? It's a waste of Anet's time. They CAN'T make it fair, so it makes little sense to add other paths. ONE path is the fairest way it can be, EVEN if it's not your preferred path.

 

The only thing that you can count on is that it won't be implemented in a way that you imagine it should be to be fair to you, or whoever else doesn't want to do raids. If anything, it's more likely to be more effort/time/gold required to get it in a new path, because again, if you want 'fair', then it wouldn't be to make an easier path after implementation of the original one. "FAIR" just isn't a good reason because it's not possible; it's impractical.

 

You're right, this isn't the first we have seen these discussions and it's not the last time people will need to be reminded that however it's done, it won't be because of 'fairness'.

[Linken.6345]

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > Would be nice to have a path to all legendary gear (weapons, armors, trinkets and back pieces) for every mode (owpve, dungeons, fractals, raids, spvp, wvw)... so players can play how they want.

> >

> > Just remember folks... “It all gets back to our basic design philosophy. Our games aren’t about preparing to have fun, or about grinding for a future fun reward. Our games are designed to be fun from moment to moment.” - Mike O’Brien

>

> What's the whole point of this thread if I may ask?

>

> -There is already legendary armor for all game modes and the only difference is that raid armor has a different skin...if you want the skin then play the content ? And no..I hate raids but I need legendary armor for wvw..so I just do that and craft legendary armor using wvw mode, I don't need the skin, if I want the skin I play the content

 

Well some people in this thread dont recognize raids as pve there is that.

[Tails.9372]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

It gives players a long term goal and keeps them playing, that's the main reason why legendaries were introduced in the first place.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

> It gives players a long term goal and keeps them playing, that's the main reason why legendaries were introduced in the first place.

 

Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ... The argument in these last 18 pages (and countless threads before it) is about being more fair ... except Anet can't make multiple paths equally fair, just like they can't balance multiple classes for performance, or provide 'equal' loot in multiple maps. Fairness might be a reason, but it can't be done practically; it's a completely unreasonable expectation. Are you ready to accept unfair implementations of paths? I know people aren't. If the argument is about fairness, and it can't be implemented fairly, what's the point? If the case is to ensure it's fair, then it can ONLY be one path.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > It doesn't matter which part of the population generates more profits. Are you with me?

> > It doesn't matter, because the goal is to have both of them. Still with me?

> > The goal is to have both, because the combined profits are higher.

> Not if the loss from one part of the population is greater than gain due to the other. And i'm not so sure that the gain from the raid crowd is all that great - hardcores aren't great buyers (unless, again, it's about p2w).

>

 

It does not register to them that this would drive away the casuals, as in their own mind the Casuals have enough content.

 

And as already been said many times over.. Anet won't do anything.

 

So if this is a deal breaker for anyone, I hate to say it, but it's time to look for a new MMO.

If it's not.. then game on.

 

But this discussion is over.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

> > It gives players a long term goal and keeps them playing, that's the main reason why legendaries were introduced in the first place.

>

> Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ... The argument in these last 18 pages (and countless threads before it) is about being more fair ... except Anet can't make multiple paths equally fair, just like they can't balance multiple classes for performance, or provide 'equal' loot in multiple maps. Fairness might be a reason, but it can't be done practically; it's a completely unreasonable expectation. Are you ready to accept unfair implementations of paths? I know people aren't. If the argument is about fairness, and it can't be implemented fairly, what's the point? If the case is to ensure it's fair, then it can ONLY be one path.

 

Sure it could be done.. Just give different skins for each _path_, like they have done with a ton of their other content. But given they could not even be bothered to give WvW or sPvP a skin at all... and truth be told, beyond they just don't care, I can't think of a single reason why they would do that.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

> > > It gives players a long term goal and keeps them playing, that's the main reason why legendaries were introduced in the first place.

> >

> > Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ... The argument in these last 18 pages (and countless threads before it) is about being more fair ... except Anet can't make multiple paths equally fair, just like they can't balance multiple classes for performance, or provide 'equal' loot in multiple maps. Fairness might be a reason, but it can't be done practically; it's a completely unreasonable expectation. Are you ready to accept unfair implementations of paths? I know people aren't. If the argument is about fairness, and it can't be implemented fairly, what's the point? If the case is to ensure it's fair, then it can ONLY be one path.

>

> Sure it could be done.. Just give different skins for each _path_, like they have done with a ton of their other content. But given they could not even be bothered to give WvW or sPvP a skin at all... and truth be told, beyond they just don't care, I can't think of a single reason why they would do that.

 

Again, you need to pull yourself out of the theoretical discussions of what COULD be done. That's not a practical approach to thinking about multiple paths. It has nothing to do with what COULD be. Lots of things COULD be, but only one state CAN be.

[Tails.9372]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ...

Not really, if the only way to "further progress" is though a gamemode they can't stand then they are more likely to give up on it under the pretext that the game doesn't have anything else left for them to do. Also, it's alredy too late for the "only one path" approach due to the fact that we already have multiple ways to get legendary gear and if it's about a "gamemode" in particular then a legendary set tied to an overarching reward system would be the most "fair" way to go about it.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > Exactly ... Just because in theory, multiple legendary paths sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it happens. the PRACTICAL side is the time it takes and how it's done. I don't really see it's worth the effort. What return on Anet's effort do they get, other than some goodwill for entitled players that aren't willing to do what is required NOW to get it?

> > > > It gives players a long term goal and keeps them playing, that's the main reason why legendaries were introduced in the first place.

> > >

> > > Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ... The argument in these last 18 pages (and countless threads before it) is about being more fair ... except Anet can't make multiple paths equally fair, just like they can't balance multiple classes for performance, or provide 'equal' loot in multiple maps. Fairness might be a reason, but it can't be done practically; it's a completely unreasonable expectation. Are you ready to accept unfair implementations of paths? I know people aren't. If the argument is about fairness, and it can't be implemented fairly, what's the point? If the case is to ensure it's fair, then it can ONLY be one path.

> >

> > Sure it could be done.. Just give different skins for each _path_, like they have done with a ton of their other content. But given they could not even be bothered to give WvW or sPvP a skin at all... and truth be told, beyond they just don't care, I can't think of a single reason why they would do that.

>

> Again, you need to pull yourself out of the theoretical discussions of what COULD be done. That's not a practical approach to thinking about multiple paths. It has nothing to do with what COULD be. Lots of things COULD be, but only one state CAN be.

 

It Won't be Done.. and they **CAN** make additional armor skins and they **CAN** make many paths to the same end reward, they have chosen **NOT TO** as such.. any distinction on your part between Can and Could, are purely a matter of academia for the sake of it, and have no real value to this discussion.

 

They **CAN** if they want to, make Shatter drop a 1000 LI's, and they **CAN** if they want to, set Teq's rewards to drop Legendary Armor. It is well within their ability to do so.

 

As such, there no tangible difference between **can** and **could** in this situation, but at the end of the day, they have _chosen not to_.

 

Now, if you want to pontificate on why they have _chosen not to_ .. well, not being rude, I really don't care, but knock yourself out.

[Obtena.7952]

Actually, it has lots of value; it will be the MOST critical consideration. Since this is a business, the most important question isn't if they can or if it's the right thing to do, it's about who they have to do it, when they can do it, if it's worth doing ... you know, the real practical questions on why a business does something? Arguing right or wrong or fairness assumes some level of morality is at play in the decision ... there isn't.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Yes sure, but that happens with or without multiple paths ...

> Not really, if the only way to "further progress" is though a gamemode they can't stand then they are more likely to give up on it under the pretext that the game doesn't have anything else left for them to do. Also, it's alredy too late for the "only one path" approach due to the fact that we already have multiple ways to get legendary gear and if it's about a "gamemode" in particular then a legendary set tied to an overarching reward system would be the most "fair" way to go about it.

 

I'm going to drag you back to what is real; playing MMO's isn't about fair or catering to a specific group of players that seek pixels. If you don't see a path to get pixels you want, you don't get them, regardless of how many paths exist. The issue here isn't how many paths there are to pixels; it's about the practical application of making those paths, which is not; we ALREADY see how impractical it is for Anet to even create a second set of legendary weapons, or how long it even took to create the ONE path for the armor. Anet doesn't make the game to ensure paths to pixels for everyone, probably because it's not practical, so it's an illusion to argue that it must happen because it's fair to more players.

 

If people are likely to give up just because they can't get a pixel, those players aren't part of the population that cares about multiple paths anyways, because to them, the pixel is more important than the path to get it. Again, Anet's overall goal here is to provide a gaming experience, not paths to pixels. If the whole game was crap to play, the pixels wouldn't matter. If the pixels were crap or too hard to get, yes, a portion of the people would not like that and maybe even leave, but most people would still play the game because it's a good experience for them.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Actually, it has lots of value; it will be the MOST critical consideration.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

Ah double post.

 

 

 

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I'm going to drag you back to what is real; playing MMO's isn't about fair or catering to a specific group of players that seek pixels.

 

I'm gonna stop you right here.. an MMO is **ALL** about _Catering to Specific Groups of Players that seek Pixels_.

 

>Anet doesn't make the game to ensure paths to pixels for everyone, probably because it's not practical, so it's an illusion to argue that it must happen because it's fair to more players.

 

Gonna correct you here again.. Yes, this game was originally made so that players would not be grinding after _gear_, hence why originally Legendary Weapons were just Exotics, and even the highest level Dungeon Armor was just Exotic, which, exotic Armor was very easy to obtain by other means. So, doing harder content, or longer grinds was purely a matter of wanting ascetics.

 

This means, like it or not, Locking things like Legendary Armor (which has unique and special stats and abilities) behind a Raid, goes against the very foundation of their design principals.

 

Which makes sense some of their player base would not take that kindly.

 

Now if you wanted some WoW _light_ clone, this was not really supposed to be your game. This was designed to be the casuals game.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Obtena brings up practicality. So, what does that mean in terms of L. Armor?

 

+ ANet told us somewhere back (old forums, iirc) that it can take 9 months to develop an armor set (3 weights, male and female, multiple races). Add to that any extra time to make L. Armor cosmetically "special," as Envoy Armor is (like it or not, the freaking stuff animates). Is it any wonder that ANet said there are no plans for additional L. Armor skins? Unless ANet were to say otherwise, there will be no further L. Armor skins.

+ There is a difference between L. Armor skins and L. Armor functionality. The functionality _is already available_ via two other paths. Adding L. Functionality to Ascended could be done via a general PvE path. However, what demographic would that serve? At this point, anyone who PvP's, WvW's and/or raids has a path to L. Armor functionality. That leaves people who only PvE and who also don't raid.

+ Exclusive stuff as a reward is so intertwined with the idea of raids in MMO's that failure to offer exclusive rewards is likely to be a failure point for that content. ANet knew this when they decided to implement "hard" instanced ten man PvE content, and called it raids. That's why they put L. Armor in raids. The people who want a path to L. Armor cosmetics other than raids would only be satisfied if the one thing that is not going to happen were to happen.

+ There are some players (probably a lot) who are uninterested in L. Gear.

+ So, two parts of the PvE only/non-raid player demographic would not be served by a PvE path to L. Armor functionality.

+ The size of the group that would be served is unknown, but it certainly does not consist of "all players who PvE only and also don't care to raid."

 

It's easy for us to say, "ANet should do this." However, is pleasing a _size unknown_ demographic via a reward system that may be time intensive the best use of resources? We just don't know. One thing we do know, though, is that ANet is committed to raids until further notice, so we cannot expect them to vary from their stance about the Envoy skins.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > So let me hold your hand on this one simple easy to grasp point. _Your demographic is not as profitable as mine_.

> >

> > So let me hold your hand on this:

> > A + B > A when B > 0. My demographic creates non-zero profits. See where I'm heading with that?

> Nowhere. If you think even for a moment about what is really happening here, you will realize that your bad attempt at math has nothing to do with the situation.

> (hint: you forgot to cover the _changes_ to A and B )

>

> BTW: Stihl has a point here. Not necessarily about him personally being a greater loss for anet (since i have no idea how much was he spending), but about the demographics in general. A lot of research shows, that in general, barring p2w stuff (which GW2 doesn't have) it's not the most hardcore players that are the greatest income source for microtransaction-funded games, but the so-called dedicated casuals (players that have a lot of time to invest in the games, but whose playing style is more casual).

>

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > It doesn't matter which part of the population generates more profits. Are you with me?

> > It doesn't matter, because the goal is to have both of them. Still with me?

> > The goal is to have both, because the combined profits are higher.

> Not if the loss from one part of the population is greater than gain due to the other. And i'm not so sure that the gain from the raid crowd is all that great - hardcores aren't great buyers (unless, again, it's about p2w).

>

>

>

>

 

It's simplified, of course. In general it is very difficult to estimate these processes without inside information. You'll have to factor the rates at which you gain and lose players. I'd guess the rate they lose casual players stayed pretty much the same, but they slowed down the loss of hardcore ones. This is just a guess, **however** there's one fact that supports it - ANet have the inside information, *and they keep developing raids*. This means they see raids as a market success, and this isn't a guess. Which means my simplified statement from above is more or less correct. They're adding diversity in the game so they can cover a wider playerbase.