On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > It's pointless mate. He doesn't care about the raids. He'd just get the rewards for himself even if this ruins a game mode completely, because he's not playing that content.

> > > > >

> > > > > That's not accurate. I've already noted that I would continue to view this as the best path forward, even if I, personally, were just given all this stuff and no longer had a personal need for it. It's not about me, but it is about people *like* me.

> > > >

> > > > Oh, I'm fully aware you would continue to view this as "the best path forward", as the alternative would be to admit to yourself you're being extremely selfish. You don't want to think that of yourself, and therefore you'll find a way to convince yourself otherwise. This is what makes the conversation pointless. You're debating out of belief and you're not listening to reason.

> > >

> > > And you don't feel that this argument more applies to you and the people gatekeeping the current raid implementation? After all, *I'm* arguing that they should make rewards available to more players that want them, *you* are the one arguing "no, that's not necessary, because I've already got mine."

> >

> > Nope. Because I'm giving actual, valid reasons. How do you know they're valid? Because they work. You can see them work, not just in this game, but in any other. The processes aren't that complex. You can easily anticipate their development. *You* choose to ignore that, not me. However, ignoring facts that we don't like isn't a good strategy. Not in real life, not in game development, not anywhere.

>

> I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just disagreeing with their application in this context. None of what you noted is hard fact, it's just your own opinion as to what benefits and what harms a game.

 

An opinion backed by practice, as I stated just now. But you ignored it. :lol:

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > It's pointless mate. He doesn't care about the raids. He'd just get the rewards for himself even if this ruins a game mode completely, because he's not playing that content.

> > >

> > > That's not accurate. I've already noted that I would continue to view this as the best path forward, even if I, personally, were just given all this stuff and no longer had a personal need for it. It's not about me, but it is about people *like* me.

> >

> > Oh, I'm fully aware you would continue to view this as "the best path forward", as the alternative would be to admit to yourself you're being extremely selfish. You don't want to think that of yourself, and therefore you'll find a way to convince yourself otherwise. This is what makes the conversation pointless. You're debating out of belief and you're not listening to reason.

>

> And you don't feel that this argument more applies to you and the people gatekeeping the current raid implementation? After all, *I'm* arguing that they should make rewards available to more players that want them, *you* are the one arguing "no, that's not necessary, because I've already got mine."

>

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Again why would i go from easy ti normal mode? Easy mode takes far less time to do.

>

> That's entirely up to you. Why would you raid today when you could just farm world bosses? My assumption was that there were people that *enjoyed* raiding, but if nobody actually *wants* to be there then maybe they should just roll the whole thing up.

>

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Its irrelevant what would you trade if someone could get ab advantage no skin in the game would allow you to be at his lvl

>

> I wouldn't care. Most of my characters are in mostly exotics at the moment, a few might still have some rares sprinkled in there. That's fine for most content. If they added a new stat tier above Ascended, I couldn't care less who had it, so long as exotic is enough to get through the content. It's not like stat differences like that are more important than skins.

 

Ppl will go for the path of least resistance. U prev said u walked to school, why would u ever walk if you could get there by car?

 

Ppl like challenge when it rewards them accordingly, if you take that away its meaningless. Again...

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> An opinion backed by practice, as I stated just now. But you ignored it. :lol:

 

An opinion backed by more opinion. Again, I understand your point and how you came by it, I just disagree with how you're applying it to the current situation.

 

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Ppl will go for the path of least resistance. U prev said u walked to school, why would u ever walk if you could get there by car?

 

Every day millions of people around the world walk places even if they have the option of taking a car or public transportation. Some people just walk in a pointless circle and return where they started! Who am I to judge?

 

But again, we aren't talking about a "path of least resistance" here, we're talking about a "path of different resistance." Less steep, but longer. Tell me, when you approach a building, and they have a stairway leading 10ft up to an entrance, or a ramp that reaches the same place over about 30ft of switchback, which do you most often take? The stairs, which are faster, or the ramp, which is the "path of least resistance?" I typically take the stairs myself, and most people do, but for those who can't take the stairs, the ramp still allows them access. There's not just a sign that says "git gud."

 

> Ppl like challenge when it rewards them accordingly, if you take that away its meaningless. Again...

 

And again, the harder mode would offer more reward, comparable to its difficulty. It just wouldn't offer any *exclusive* reward, allowing other players an alternate path.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > An opinion backed by practice, as I stated just now. But you ignored it. :lol:

>

> An opinion backed by more opinion. Again, I understand your point and how you came by it, I just disagree with how you're applying it to the current situation.

 

Riiiight. The entire gamedev industry is "an opinion", and it holds no more weight than your own. :lol: :

I'm done with you.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > But winning 6 matches could also be considered to hard/not fun for some people. Where do you draw the line and why should those people then be ignored.

>

> "Where it's reasonable to do so," as with anything. Winning six matches cannot be described as "hard," because it's a team sport, and no matter how bad you might be, if you play enough matches you'll win six of them eventually just by luck. Plus you get points for losing too, so I think it's something like losing twenty matches and you get it too, so that's the hard floor. If you don't enjoy the mode after 20 matches, you probably never will. And yeah, it might be boring, but hat's what I'm talking about, if it's a reasonable amount of time, a few hours out of a game meant to be played for hundreds, then that's not a big deal. It's a far different thing than a reward that requires you to spend *hundreds* of hours doing an activity that you aren't enjoying.

>

> >But why is a few hours manageable? what makes the people in your argument who don't wat to spend those few hours worse then the people who do?

>

> On a game of this scope, I think it's disingenuous to even attempt to argue otherwise. If you're unwilling to put in a *few* hours here or there, then this is just entirely the wrong genre. If any player enjoys GW2 in any way, then they can be reasonably expected to invest a few hours here or there, simple as that. I don't take this as a serious argument, I take it as an attempt to shut down discussion of the topic, a combination of slippery slopes and strawmen that benefits nothing.

>

 

Well this is not supposed to be a straw man in any means. More the question why you are so certain the place where you think it makes sense to stop is better then where others think it's reasonable.

 

This whole tread has been nothing more than personal opinion from one party to personal opinion of the other party.

 

People try to use moral high ground as a motivation why the multiple difficulties idea is better while not going all the way with this idea.

Others block this by noting how it happens in other MMO's and that prestiges rewards are necessary.

 

No-one is going to admit defeat so to say so why does this debate keeps happening over and over and over most of the time with the same people.

 

Honestly the biggest "problem" in accessibility is caused by one of GW2 biggest assets. Namely the no vertical progression property. And this can never be solved because it doesn't need solving.

[Assic.2746]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > An opinion backed by practice, as I stated just now. But you ignored it. :lol:

> >

> > An opinion backed by more opinion. Again, I understand your point and how you came by it, I just disagree with how you're applying it to the current situation.

>

> Riiiight. The entire gamedev industry is "an opinion", and it holds no more weight than your own. :lol: :

> I'm done with you.

 

There is no point in continuing the discussion. Look at the topic history. He does it over and over when one thread dies he starts another one. I remember myself being active in one of those threads **2,5 year ago**. What I read was "I don't play instanced content, WvW, PvP, fractals only open world PvE, but I want legendary skins, I want I want, I want... my opinion is most important and there is more people like me."

 

Guess what? 2,5 year has passed and nothing changed. Legendary armor skins are still tied to the content they originated from.

 

Everytime different people try to state their opinion... they end up "feeding a troll". There is no point in throwing a ball back and forth. **If you don't agree with someone's opinion then don't try to fix it. Just ignore it, it's not your problem.** I said what I wanted to say and I am not gonna revisit this copypasta thread again. I am gonna ignore it. Have a good day and remember guys "git gut".

[zealex.9410]

I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

 

But it isn't. They added it to WvW and sPvP.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

>

> But it isn't. They added it to WvW and sPvP.

 

I meant in pve. In terms of diverse content pve is the most expansive. Im not argueing raids shouldn't have a legendary tier armor but prob places like fractals should have 1 as well (diff skins obv less flashy to reflect the smaller quantity of challe ging content in that part of the game).

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > An opinion backed by practice, as I stated just now. But you ignored it. :lol:

> >

> > An opinion backed by more opinion. Again, I understand your point and how you came by it, I just disagree with how you're applying it to the current situation.

>

> Riiiight. The entire gamedev industry is "an opinion", and it holds no more weight than your own. :lol: :

> I'm done with you.

 

Your *interpretation* of the game's industry is your opinion. I do not agree with it. I believe that the game industry in general tends to side more with me on this one, as most games offer multiple difficulty levels and/or multiple paths to completing various player goals. I do not believe that you've made any sort of logic-based case that my proposal would be out of step with general game design principles.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> Well this is not supposed to be a straw man in any means. More the question why you are so certain the place where you think it makes sense to stop is better then where others think it's reasonable.

 

I'm sure there's a reasonable margin of disagreement there, but it's sort of like that argument "if you can't stop ALL world hunger, why even bother feeding people?" Pointing out that you might have *some* people left unsatisfied by any given solution does not in any way imply that you should not do what you CAN to satisfy MOST people. I believe that expanding access to raids and raid rewards would satisfy *more* people than it would anger, and that it would satisfy *most* people that are dissatisfied with the status quo. If you have a solution that you believe would be even better at accomplishing those things then I am all ears, but to point out that it isn't a perfect solution does not indicate that it is not the *best* solution. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should give up on trying to improve anything.

 

 

[Skyric.9246]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

>

> Art is subjective.

>

> Which skins a player prefers, and how much it matters to him which skins are available will vary from player to player.

>

> Just because you don't care, does not make it somehow "wrong" for others to care.

 

Of course it's not wrong to care, the issue is how much someone cares, especially when they care enough to demand a completely revamped game mode and reward system, and call people who disagree with them selfish evil people as you have done in the past. That's the problem with this is that in your continued quest to get the rewards you want, you've tried to justify it on moral grounds and by casting people who feel like the system is fine are bad people. You must remember the thread a while back where you said that people that think exclusive rewards are a a good thing are evil because they take pleasure in the sadness of others that can't or won't take the time to get them. That takes the discussion from the ridiculous to the sublime.

 

You've consistently demanded that people demonstrate the logical superiority of their position, but the only thing you can come up for your position is the nebulous concept of happiness and because you want a skin you should get it however you want to earn it. There's no logic to that. Once you make the move towards utilitarianism, you run into issues that you don't really want to address. One is the calculation problem. How does the game designer really determine what a majority of its customers want? And secondly, assuming the company can figure that out, what if the majority are hypersensitive and unreasonable people. Here's where you have to address the strawmen you so easily dismiss. If the company took some kind of straw poll, and determined that the majority of players wanted a set of legendary armor mailed to them after 6 months of completing a world boss train in Tyria every day, should they do it? If you believe in utilitarianism, then you would say they should. I would submit that they should not do it, because that's not a reasonable thing to want even if the majority wants it. I don't believe that you're not personally suggesting something that silly, but when you rely on concepts like "making the most people happy" you have to allow for people to test the limits of that position and illustrate why that can't be the test of what the company should do. You would have to acknowledge that reasonableness plays a role in this somewhere.

 

> How sad should they have to be for ANet to do something to make them less sad?

 

To me, this is really the key question, because it helps answer whether there is a real problem or not. Apparently enough players made a stink about the difficulty of Orr at release and Heart of Thorns maps and gameplay achievements at release and the company made a determination that general everyday gameplay was ruined for a sufficient number of people that they took notice and made a change. By contrast, I'm just not convinced that the inability or unwillingness to get a handful of skins among the thousands or so available is a real issue. In considering a revamping of their reward system and creating new game modes, they have to determine if people are just a little annoyed that they can't get envoy armor, like "Oh man, that's a bummer," or if people are saying to themselves "They introduced raids into my precious game that I decided to play because it didn't have raids, then they locked a handful of exclusive skins that I want behind raids, so I conclude that raids ruined my game and I'm just going to first stop buying gems, and then probably quit," or something in between. And then if it's the latter, the company has to decide, again if enough people really feel that way, is that a reasonable stance or are those just hypersensitive and unreasonable people that can't be made happy.

 

I understand that the company should always strive to do better, and don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, two wrongs don't make a right, yada yada. But you want a sweeping change to the reward system and new game modes. So at this point you've got the burden, which probably can't be met in a logical way, of demonstrating for example why it's evil to expect someone who wants the Staff of Matthias to actually beat Matthias on it's current difficulty. It's not so simple as you represent the good guys and people that think exclusive rewards are a healthy thing when there are thousands of alternatives represent the bad guys.

 

[Talindra.4958]

?? u guys should join teapot chat xD

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

>Of course it's not wrong to care, the issue is how much someone cares, especially when they care enough to demand a completely revamped game mode and reward system, and call people who disagree with them selfish evil people as you have done in the past.

 

There's nothing extreme about suggesting a revamped game mode or reward system, that's the nature of game design and game companies do it all the time.

 

Also, I don't call people selfish for disagreeing with me, some people disagree with me for reasons that do not seem to be self-absorbed. I only call them selfish if they disagree with me for selfish reasons, like wanting to keep these rewards out of the hands of people who want them, or out of a desire to keep players queuing up for raids who'd rather not be there, simply because it makes *their* lives easier to have shorter queuing times. I call people selfish for being selfish, not for disagreeing with me.

 

> That's the problem with this is that in your continued quest to get the rewards you want, you've tried to justify it on moral grounds and by casting people who feel like the system is fine are bad people.

 

That's mischaracterizing both sides of the argument. On my end, it's not about "getting the rewards I want," and the people who "feel like the system is fine" are only bad people if they do not care about the people left in the cold by the existing system. If that is the case, then whether I point it out or not would not change the facts of the matter.

 

>You must remember the thread a while back where you said that people that think exclusive rewards are a a good thing are evil because they take pleasure in the sadness of others that can't or won't take the time to get them.

 

I'm not sure those were my exact words, but how would you characterize it? If a man can only be happy with having a good meal, IF he's assured that other people will go hungry, what would *you* call that?

 

>You've consistently demanded that people demonstrate the logical superiority of their position, but the only thing you can come up for your position is the nebulous concept of happiness and because you want a skin you should get it however you want to earn it.

 

I only demand a logical argument if they assert that their position is logical. If they recognize that their position is entirely their own opinion, I require no "proof" beyond that.

 

> How does the game designer really determine what a majority of its customers want?

 

Ask.

 

> And secondly, assuming the company can figure that out, what if the majority are hypersensitive and unreasonable people.

 

Then they're in trouble, regardless of what they do.

 

>Here's where you have to address the strawmen you so easily dismiss. If the company took some kind of straw poll, and determined that the majority of players wanted a set of legendary armor mailed to them after 6 months of completing a world boss train in Tyria every day, should they do it?

 

Yes. I do not believe that this is what the majority *would* decide, but if they did, then yes, that's what the developers should provide. Don't take that for being my suggestion, I'm just addressing the unlikely hypothetical you provided.

 

> I don't believe that you're not personally suggesting something that silly, but when you rely on concepts like "making the most people happy" you have to allow for people to test the limits of that position and illustrate why that can't be the test of what the company should do.

 

Sure you can, because "making the most people happy" is based on the premise that most people already behave within certain reasonable boundaries. Even if you make a game with a "press one button to win" mode, most players will not play that mode, because they know that they won't enjoy it. You don't need to adapt to the most extreme fringes, but that does not mean that there is no benefit to adapting to the broadest *reasonable* field.

 

>You would have to acknowledge that reasonableness plays a role in this somewhere.

 

And if you've been paying attention, I consistently have.

 

> So at this point you've got the burden, which probably can't be met in a logical way, of demonstrating for example why it's evil to expect someone who wants the Staff of Matthias to actually beat Matthias on it's current difficulty.

 

I don't think it's necessarily evil to *expect* that. I don't think it's evil of ANet to put it in that way. But I do think there is some evil involved in hearing that some player can't or doesn't want to beat Matthias, but does want that staff, and saying "well good that he doesn't have it, he should just get better at the game." It just shows a complete lack of human empathy. You could reasonably say "I do feel sorry for that person, but I deeply believe it would be worse for the game as a whole to let him have the thing he wants," but more often than not, the response I get around here on a case like that is a Nelson Muntz "Haa haa!," and there's something deeply troubling about that.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

> >

> > But it isn't. They added it to WvW and sPvP.

>

> I meant in pve. In terms of diverse content pve is the most expansive. Im not argueing raids shouldn't have a legendary tier armor but prob places like fractals should have 1 as well (diff skins obv less flashy to reflect the smaller quantity of challe ging content in that part of the game).

 

Why is PvE always more special? Add more ways to obtain legendary weapons, backpieces and trinkets (Aurora is hardlocked behind open world, no backpiece in open world). Then we can talk. All legendaries are locked behind specific content and there is always only one way per mode.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Why is PvE always more special?

 

Because it's where the overwhelming majority of players spend the overwhelming majority of their time and interest in the game? It's like asking why Battle Royale gets so much attention from the Fortnite devs.

 

>Add more ways to obtain legendary weapons, backpieces and trinkets (Aurora is hardlocked behind open world, no backpiece in open world). Then we can talk.

 

They can do both.

 

Although, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there actually any point to PvP having legendary trinkets? They have no skins, and PvP has no stats, so what's the point?

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > Why is PvE always more special?

>

> Because it's where the overwhelming majority of players spend the overwhelming majority of their time and interest in the game? It's like asking why Battle Royale gets so much attention from the Fortnite devs.

>

> >Add more ways to obtain legendary weapons, backpieces and trinkets (Aurora is hardlocked behind open world, no backpiece in open world). Then we can talk.

>

> They can do both.

>

> Although, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there actually any point to PvP having legendary trinkets? They have no skins, and PvP has no stats, so what's the point?

>

>

 

They have effects.

Why would they need armor? I think it has something to do with an alternative path to armor...

You are just exposing yourself. You ask for all rewards in all game modes **and** question the purpose of rewards in specific content. This is everyone wondering since you started.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>They have effects.

 

Oh, then ok, sure, give PvP a way too.

 

>Why would they need armor? I think it has something to do with an alternative path to armor...

 

Yeah, I don't really understand they they gave PvP Legendary armor either, since it doesn't come with the skin. It should have come with the skin.

 

>You are just exposing yourself. You ask for all rewards in all game modes and question the purpose of rewards in specific content.

 

Well, I *question* it, that's different than *opposing* it. If it doesn't actually serve a function there, I'm not really sure what the point of it is. I also found it ironic that PvP was the first mode to get unlockable wings, given that there's no point to flying in PvP.

 

>This is everyone wondering since you started.

 

They could just ask.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >They have effects.

>

> Oh, then ok, sure, give PvP a way too.

>

> >Why would they need armor? I think it has something to do with an alternative path to armor...

>

> Yeah, I don't really understand they they gave PvP Legendary armor either, since it doesn't come with the skin. It should have come with the skin.

>

> >You are just exposing yourself. You ask for all rewards in all game modes and question the purpose of rewards in specific content.

>

> Well, I *question* it, that's different than *opposing* it. If it doesn't actually serve a function there, I'm not really sure what the point of it is. I also found it ironic that PvP was the first mode to get unlockable wings, given that there's no point to flying in PvP.

>

> >This is everyone wondering since you started.

>

> They could just ask.

 

You were asked multiple times and never answered why you are more important than the rest.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

> > >

> > > But it isn't. They added it to WvW and sPvP.

> >

> > I meant in pve. In terms of diverse content pve is the most expansive. Im not argueing raids shouldn't have a legendary tier armor but prob places like fractals should have 1 as well (diff skins obv less flashy to reflect the smaller quantity of challe ging content in that part of the game).

>

> Why is PvE always more special? Add more ways to obtain legendary weapons, backpieces and trinkets (Aurora is hardlocked behind open world, no backpiece in open world). Then we can talk. All legendaries are locked behind specific content and there is always only one way per mode.

 

Well raids also have the legendary ring no?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> You were asked multiple times and never answered why you are more important than the rest.

 

I don't recall being asked, but my answer would be "I'm not."

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > > I mean he keeps saying there more ppl that want this and i only see him/her and astra. And astra has more serious concerns because i too find it wierd that a tier of armor is locked in raids only.

> > > >

> > > > But it isn't. They added it to WvW and sPvP.

> > >

> > > I meant in pve. In terms of diverse content pve is the most expansive. Im not argueing raids shouldn't have a legendary tier armor but prob places like fractals should have 1 as well (diff skins obv less flashy to reflect the smaller quantity of challe ging content in that part of the game).

> >

> > Why is PvE always more special? Add more ways to obtain legendary weapons, backpieces and trinkets (Aurora is hardlocked behind open world, no backpiece in open world). Then we can talk. All legendaries are locked behind specific content and there is always only one way per mode.

>

> Well raids also have the legendary ring no?

 

Yes, I said that those all locked into specific modes. Legendary armor is already the only exeption. You can't have everything.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057 " said:

>"I don't recall being asked, but my answer would be "I'm not."

 

Why do you dismiss all other opinions?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Why do you dismiss all other opinions?

 

I don't, I just don't give them any weight *beyond* being opinions. If you have an opinion that stands in contrast to mine, then I acknowledge that this is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and you're welcome to share it, but it doesn't necessarily change my own opinion, which I will likewise continue to hold and to share. If you do try to assert your opinion as a fact, then I will point out that it is, in fact, an opinion, but that is not dismissing it as an opinion, but merely dismissing it as a fact.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > Why do you dismiss all other opinions?

>

> I don't, I just don't give them any weight *beyond* being opinions. If you have an opinion that stands in contrast to mine, then I acknowledge that this is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and you're welcome to share it, but it doesn't necessarily change my own opinion, which I will likewise continue to hold and to share. If you do try to assert your opinion as a fact, then I will point out that it is, in fact, an opinion, but that is not dismissing it as an opinion, but merely dismissing it as a fact.

 

But the opion for unique rewards is supported by game design for over 20 years now. Your opion never found its way into any game. Not even singleplayer games use this model. They have rewards (like character skins) for specific tasks that can't be obtained otherwise. I doubt that you are the first that considered this.

It will never happen in GW2.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>But the opion for unique rewards is supported by game design for over 20 years now.

 

Within some contexts, yes, within others, no. My assertion is that the current way these items are being handled is a negative application of the theory, rather than a positive one.

 

>Not even singleplayer games use this model. They have rewards (like character skins) for specific tasks that can't be obtained otherwise.

 

Different games handle things differently. Many games don't involve multi-play in which you can show off outfits, and of those that do, many are competitive, more about one-upping other players than forming a cooperative community like Guild Wars'. Most games that have unique skins to them, these are relatively easy to achieve within the context of the balance of the game. If the skin is hard to achieve, then the rest of the game is likely also hard, so if you want to play at all, you know what you're in for. Many single player games have mods and other options for customization that are unavailable in GW2.

 

Most importantly, even *if* one were to buy into your premise that "every other game does it that way," that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it here. GW2 has a wide variety of content, of all sorts of varying difficulties, almost ensuring that there will be some elements that a given player might love and be good at, and others that he might hate or be bad at. Excluding elements that would make the enjoyable portions more enjoyable is no benefit to him. GW2 has developed a fairly unique community around customization and player skins, and the exclusionary aspects only serve to limit player options, not to enhance the game.

 

>I doubt that you are the first that considered this.

>It will never happen in GW2.

 

That's no reason to stop asking.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >I doubt that you are the first that considered this.

> >It will never happen in GW2.

>

> That's no reason to stop asking.

 

Well, isnt that a common tactic proven to work amongst the younger generations of our race. I hope its getting you places.