On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

> A lot more people would play low-level fractals if they changed fractal rewards so you only get the rewards for the tier you actually _do_ (instead of that tier and all the ones below it, giving literally no reason to do anything less than the highest your AR allows).

 

That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

> A lot more people would play low-level fractals if they changed fractal rewards so you only get the rewards for the tier you actually _do_ (instead of that tier and all the ones below it, giving literally no reason to do anything less than the highest your AR allows).

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > Yes, people run them because they had the highest rewards in the game. Not because they actually liked it. The dungeon participation plummed after silverwastes got released.

> No, dungeon participation plummeted after Anet butchered their rewards (specifically to drive people out of dungeons and into fractals/raids, as they literally stated outright when they did it).

 

Forcing people into lower fractals will end really badly. Worst case people will just stop play fractals.

 

Can we stop this lie already? Since the introduction of dungeon frequenter rewards are around the same than before the nerf. VInceman did the math multiple times. The participation would be still bad even without changes. People never run them because they enjoyed them. It was always about rewards and we got way more rewarding parts of the game.

 

>@"Ohoni.6057" said:

>...

 

More like 2-3 especially after all that power creep happened with HoT and PoF. Dungeons are complete faceroll with the break bar, even worse than the FGS exploit era. Dungeons are way easier than HoT meta events, so sort your easy mode below them. But if you rate them so high, the jump to raids isn't actually high, so people will manage the increase of 2 points. No easy mode needed.

 

Yes, raids (unlike in games with vertical progression) actually have the potencial to stay relevant for years to come. Same as fractals. Even with the rewards they have now. Your easy mode not so much.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> A lot more people would play low-level fractals if they changed fractal rewards so you only get the rewards for the tier you actually do (instead of that tier and all the ones below it, giving literally no reason to do anything less than the highest your AR allows).

 

Or even better if they changed it so that you could get rewards for ALL Fractal tiers *from* all Fractal tiers, just that you would get higher quantities of them from the higher tiers.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

 

. . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>More like 2-3 especially after all that power creep happened with HoT and PoF. Dungeons are complete faceroll with the break bar, even worse than the FGS exploit era. Dungeons are way easier than HoT meta events, so sort your easy mode below them. But if you rate them so high, the jump to raids isn't actually high, so people will manage the increase of 2 points. No easy mode needed.

 

But the entire point of this thread is to point out that easy modes *are* needed. . .

 

The jump may not be "too high" to you, but it is significant *enough* that it makes a difference. Also note that My scale didn't just reflect difficulty, it also reflected convenience, so say something that is faceroll easy but that involves a great deal of coordination and hassle just to get into it would rank a bit higher relative to something that is pretty tricky to clear but that you can jump into instantly at any time. It's a weighted scale. So a dungeon gets a few points above baseline difficulty when compared to a meta event that you can just instance into mid-event and partially contribute to. You may have a different scale, but this is my scale, and I think it makes sense.

 

>Yes, raids (unlike in games with vertical progression) actually have the potencial to stay relevant for years to come. Same as fractals. Even with the rewards they have now. Your easy mode not so much.

 

You argue that people "only played dungeons because of the rewards," and yet that seems to be exactly why people currently play raids, especially given how jealously raiders seem to guard those rewards from others. My point is that people get pretty bored of almost any content the more often they do it, and very little remains *fun* for more than six months to a year. If a given content type lasts longer than that then it's usually because it's been "juiced" by reward structures that make it unavoidable. That's not a virtuous cycle. You say "potential to stay relevant" in the sense that it would remain challenging, that it would not be trivialized by gear-creep like in some other MMOs, and that is true, but that accomplishes exactly nothing in terms of keeping it *enjoyable.*

[Miellyn.6847]

Break break bar, deal damage needs great coordination? No. Dungeons ARE faceroll. Open LFG, take everything with you that joins, enjoy loot.

 

Or people enjoy content longer because it is challenging. Fractals give more rewards in the same time (1 week or 3 runs if you consider the same time investment). Many players are beyond the 750 LI needed for all armors. Yet raids are one of the most active LFGs.

Try to take the unique WvW rewards from them. Just open a thread in their subforum.

There are no rewards that make content unavoidable. If you don't like content don't play it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Break break bar, deal damage needs great coordination? No. Dungeons ARE faceroll. Open LFG, take everything with you that joins, enjoy loot.

 

Honestly, I haven't done dungeons since HoT, so maybe they are too easy now. For reference I'm talking about how difficult they were in the 2013-14 period.

 

> Or people enjoy content longer because it is challenging. Fractals give more rewards in the same time (1 week or 3 runs if you consider the same time investment). Many players are beyond the 750 LI needed for all armors. Yet raids are one of the most active LFGs.

 

I'm curious as to how this data is calculated. Is it by the number of posts you see when you open up the LFG? I would argue that raids would be likely to have more listings because groups are larger and more restrictive, and therefore take more time to form, so multiple groups will stay up longer, whereas other types of instanced content, a dozen groups might be advertised and filled before a single raid group does, simply because the first four people that show up are in. I am curious what the actual daily headcount for each type of content is.

 

> Try to take the unique WvW rewards from them. Just open a thread in their subforum.

 

I'm sure they wouldn't like it, although maybe they would appreciate having access to everything else in the game via WvW. I consider WvW to be a pretty dead gametype since 2014 anyway, and ANet seems to agree.

 

> There are no rewards that make content unavoidable. If you don't like content don't play it.

 

But again, we're back to the dilemma, [Do the content and not enjoy the time you spend playing the game] OR [Don't do the content and never get that thing you want]. Neither of these choices are good ones, neither is satisfactory. As a player you have to choose one, but neither would make you completely happy with the outcome. I'm saying that there needs to be a third option, [Don't do the content if you don't enjoy it, but get the thing you wanted someplace else].

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

>

> . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

 

Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> >

> > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

>

> Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

 

Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

 

A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

 

B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

 

"But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

 

Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

 

I have been very clear on this.

 

I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > >

> > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> >

> > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

>

> Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

>

> A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

>

> B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

>

> "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

>

> Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

>

> I have been very clear on this.

>

> I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

 

You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

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

> > > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > > >

> > > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> > >

> > > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

> >

> > Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

> >

> > A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

> >

> > B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

> >

> > "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

> >

> > Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

> >

> > I have been very clear on this.

> >

> > I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

>

> You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

 

Well you certainly made your case there.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

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

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

> > > > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > > > >

> > > > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> > > >

> > > > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

> > >

> > > Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

> > >

> > > A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

> > >

> > > B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

> > >

> > > "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

> > >

> > > Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

> > >

> > > I have been very clear on this.

> > >

> > > I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

> >

> > You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

>

> Well you certainly made your case there.

 

I don't see a point to repeat the same things over and over and over. You don't want to listen, so why should I bother?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

> > > >

> > > > Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

> > > >

> > > > A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

> > > >

> > > > B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

> > > >

> > > > "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

> > > >

> > > > Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > I have been very clear on this.

> > > >

> > > > I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

> > >

> > > You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

> >

> > Well you certainly made your case there.

>

> I don't see a point to repeat the same things over and over and over. You don't want to listen, so why should I bother?

 

Again, I always listen, you just never make a compelling case. You're the one who clearly doesn't listen, since you always "tell me my position" but get it wrong, or ignore major elements of my proposal without addressing any actual disagreement with them. If you disagree with a conclusion I've reached, fine, but at least show your work.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

> > > > >

> > > > > A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

> > > > >

> > > > > B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

> > > > >

> > > > > "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have been very clear on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

> > > >

> > > > You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

> > >

> > > Well you certainly made your case there.

> >

> > I don't see a point to repeat the same things over and over and over. You don't want to listen, so why should I bother?

>

> Again, I always listen, you just never make a compelling case. You're the one who clearly doesn't listen, since you always "tell me my position" but get it wrong, or ignore major elements of my proposal without addressing any actual disagreement with them. If you disagree with a conclusion I've reached, fine, but at least show your work.

 

Nobody can make a compelling case if you choose to ignore what you don't like. Which you do.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > >That would suck though, because the lower tiers take much less time, thus making them more efficient. Giving your players less incentive to play more difficult content is a terrible idea. No, the system is well thought-out as it is, and it works well.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > . . . *if* you prefer to run the higher tiers. . .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Again, for a hundredth time, that's not how it works. At the very least it's a group content, it doesn't only depend on your own feelings toward it but on 4 other people as well. And in general, when designing such content, you cannot disregard the fact players will generally try to maximize the reward/effort ratio. Which you want to do yourself in every topic, by advocating lowered effort to get the same rewards. This, however, leads to faster exhaustion of the content and the game as a whole and is bad design.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again though, I'm **always** clear that I mean "the same reward pool" not "identical amounts of rewards regardless of difficulty." The easier versions would offer LESS rewards relative to how much easier they were. The idea is to split the community into two groups:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A. IF you are willing and able to complete the harder version, then you will ALWAYS do the harder version, because it will offer more rewards per unit of time spent, and there is NOT way that the easier version would in ANY way be a superior option *for you.*

> > > > > >

> > > > > > B. IF you are *unwilling and/or unable* to complete the harder version, then the easier version presents a true alternative, allowing you access to all the same rewards, *only at a slower pace,* so it is a less efficient use of your time and effort.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "But Ohoni, why then would anyone ever take option B if they could take option A?"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, Option B is for people who under the *current* system, in which *only* Option A exists, their choice is "do nothing, get nothing." This would provide an alternative *to them,* which shifts their outcome from "nothing" to "it takes longer, but they'll get there." Technically it wouldn't even be "splitting the community," since the Option B people aren't currently *in* the raid community in the first place.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have been very clear on this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself.

> > > > >

> > > > > You don't have you, you're still wrong, it won't work and it's still bad design.

> > > >

> > > > Well you certainly made your case there.

> > >

> > > I don't see a point to repeat the same things over and over and over. You don't want to listen, so why should I bother?

> >

> > Again, I always listen, you just never make a compelling case. You're the one who clearly doesn't listen, since you always "tell me my position" but get it wrong, or ignore major elements of my proposal without addressing any actual disagreement with them. If you disagree with a conclusion I've reached, fine, but at least show your work.

>

> Nobody can make a compelling case if you choose to ignore what you don't like. Which you do.

 

Again, I do not. What point do you believe I have ignored, rather than directly confronting it?

[Skyric.9246]

Here is what I don't understand about people asking for a game mode change to access certain skins. I have asked this before, but it hasn't been answered. Suppose a person has scanned all of the available skins and has decided that Envoy Armor is his/her favorite. And let's further suppose that for whatever reason the person can't or won't raid, so they will never be able to get it under current conditions. With the amount of available skins available in this game accessible through other means, is it that unreasonable for that person to just settle for their second choice without whining about it? Yes, art is subjective and skins are really important to people, but with over a thousand available skins, people should be able to find an alternative they can live with, something that's close to their favorite, something they can enjoy wearing. With all this talk about happiness, don't we have to address overall happiness with the game in the aggregate?

 

If someone can't be happy enough to keep playing without having the one skin or so they want, they are hypersensitive, and like I said earlier hypersensitivity should be ignored. That's why I don't think this is a legitimate problem. There are so many other issues that could consume developer time that are much more worthy of attention than asking for game mode changes to have more skin access, don't you think? With the amount of skins available, it's not even remotely credible to suggest that the path the game has taken with raids leaves certain people out in the cold or separates the game into haves and have-nots.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> Here is what I don't understand about people asking for a game mode change to access certain skins. I have asked this before, but it hasn't been answered. Suppose a person has scanned all of the available skins and has decided that Envoy Armor is his/her favorite. And let's further suppose that for whatever reason the person can't or won't raid, so they will never be able to get it under current conditions. With the amount of available skins available in this game accessible through other means, is it that unreasonable for that person to just settle for their second choice without whining about it?

There is no second choice if what you want is a transforming armor, is it. Besides, if we're mentioning Envoy armor, we're not talking about skins alone. QoL functionality is also something people go for. And here, again, there is no second choice for it in PvE.

Additionally, rewards are only a part of the reason why people keep asking for easy mode. Story lockout and content access are also mentioned a lot. Theoretically all of those things _could_ have a different solution, but why aim for three different solutions if you can just have one (and one that is mostly based around reusing already existing work).

 

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> If someone can't be happy enough to keep playing without having the one skin or so they want, they are hypersensitive

The same argument can be made about people that _don't_ want those skins to be available through other means, you know.

 

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> With the amount of skins available, it's not even remotely credible to suggest that the path the game has taken with raids leaves certain people out in the cold or separates the game into haves and have-nots.

And yet it does exactly that.

Hint: it's not just about a few skins.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> With the amount of available skins available in this game accessible through other means, is it that unreasonable for that person to just settle for their second choice without whining about it?

 

Pragmatically, yes, but ideally, he shouldn't have to. There's no reason he should have to, no benefit to forcing him to. Settling for second best won't make him as happy as getting his first choice, so why *not* open up a path to his first choice?

 

> Yes, art is subjective and skins are really important to people, but with over a thousand available skins, people should be able to find an alternative they can live with, something that's close to their favorite, something they can enjoy wearing.

 

Perhaps I'm unaware, which *other* armor in the game does that animation thing when you enter combat?

 

>If someone can't be happy enough to keep playing without having the one skin or so they want, they are hypersensitive, and like I said earlier hypersensitivity should be ignored.

 

It's not about being "happy enough," that's a sad standard to hold to. It should be about being "as happy as possible," matching player expectations as best as can be reasonably achieved. Unlike the age of the subscription game, it's no longer about "locking the player in" with the bare minimum that they don't cancel their sub, it's about fully *engaging* the player so that they *want* to support the game and continue to buy additional items that they don't actually need.

 

I feel like "hypersensitivity" is just a buzz word you slap onto people that you don't want to have to care about.

 

> There are so many other issues that could consume developer time that are much more worthy of attention than asking for game mode changes to have more skin access, don't you think?

 

Like what? I guarantee you that whatever *your* answer to that question might be, there are plenty of others that wouldn't personally care about that element at all, and would consider you "hypersensitive" for wanting anything done about it.

[Skyric.9246]

Right now there is a thread on reddit where people are talking about being in the top 10 or so in various categories of achievements on GW2 efficiency. The person who was #1 in the number of skins unlocked linked a screenshot showing the he/she had unlocked 4,899 skins . I don't know what the total number is, but let's assume the person, although having over 20,000 hours of playtime, is still missing a hundred or so and call it an even 5,000. Let's lop 1,000 off the top under the assumption that they're not available anymore because of seasonal content or whatever. That's still a dizzying array of choices, even if you cut out the raid skins from the list.

 

I thought the number of available skins was a lot less than that, but when I found out it was almost 5,000, that only confirmed my belief that the number of available items that players can reasonably achieve should far exceed anyone's legitimate expectations. Call it a buzzword if you like--and you've got several catch phrases of your own--but hypersensitivity is the perfect word to describe someone who complains about a handful of exclusive rewards, claims that they can't be satisfied with the number of skins available in this game, and argues that raids have created a "haves and haves-not situation."

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> Right now there is a thread on reddit where people are talking about being in the top 10 or so in various categories of achievements on GW2 efficiency. The person who was #1 in the number of skins unlocked linked a screenshot showing the he/she had unlocked 4,899 skins . I don't know what the total number is, but let's assume the person, although having over 20,000 hours of playtime, is still missing a hundred or so and call it an even 5,000. Let's lop 1,000 off the top under the assumption that they're not available anymore because of seasonal content or whatever. That's still a dizzying array of choices, even if you cut out the raid skins from the list.

 

Again, I ask, which of those skins does that animation thing when you enter combat?

 

>I thought the number of available skins was a lot less than that, but when I found out it was almost 5,000, that only confirmed my belief that the number of available items that players can reasonably achieve should far exceed anyone's legitimate expectations.

 

But again, the number of options is completely irrelevant, nobody needs that many options. When matters is that the options *available* are the ones that the player *wants.* Better to have 50 options and all of them good ones, than to have 4950 and have none of those good ones in the pile.

 

>Call it a buzzword if you like--and you've got several catch phrases of your own--but hypersensitivity is the perfect word to describe someone who complains about a handful of exclusive rewards, claims that they can't be satisfied with the number of skins available in this game, and argues that raids have created a "haves and haves-not situation."

 

You call it "hypersensitivity," I call it "exactly the right amount of sensitivity for that person to have." If someone is "hypersensitive" for caring that the skin they want is made unavailable to them, then certainly you would agree that someone else would be far *more* hypersensitive for being *upset* at the idea of that person having access to the skin, right?

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Yes, art is subjective and skins are really important to people, but with over a thousand available skins, people should be able to find an alternative they can live with, something that's close to their favorite, something they can enjoy wearing.

>

> Perhaps I'm unaware, which *other* armor in the game does that animation thing when you enter combat?

 

Not the exact same animation, but WvW chest armor has something similar. (Oh no thats not PvE. Bring your torches and pitchforks!)

 

> >If someone can't be happy enough to keep playing without having the one skin or so they want, they are hypersensitive, and like I said earlier hypersensitivity should be ignored.

>

> It's not about being "happy enough," that's a sad standard to hold to. It should be about being "as happy as possible," matching player expectations as best as can be reasonably achieved. Unlike the age of the subscription game, it's no longer about "locking the player in" with the bare minimum that they don't cancel their sub, it's about fully *engaging* the player so that they *want* to support the game and continue to buy additional items that they don't actually need.

>

> I feel like "hypersensitivity" is just a buzz word you slap onto people that you don't want to have to care about.

 

Might need to find a shrink if your happiness is dictated by the availability through your very specific means of a handful of skins within a game. Especially your analogies mostly have to do with life or death situations, and now this is now a as happy as possible ideal, I think your problem might perhaps not be with the game.

 

If anything, at this point Im thinking its probably healthy that players realise that not everything is and will be available to them incase of gaming addiction.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >Might need to find a shrink if your happiness is dictated by the availability through your very specific means of a handful of skins within a game.

>

> This is a sad argument to be making. Why would you even be playing a game if not to entertain yourself? To make fun of the mental health of a player who is looking to *enjoy* the game he's playing is rather pathetic, and really if anyone's mental health is in question, it would be a player who id *not* enjoying the content he's playing, yet is doing it anyway to earn a reward. The game developers should be rewarding fun *as much as possible,* and rewarding "grind" *as little as possible.*

I'm not making any fun of anything. The enjoyment of a game with multiple aspects like this will never completely appeal to you. If you enjoy the game only when these specific terms are met, that is not a healthy relationship you're having with the game. There is no way your uniform approach will appeal to the broadest playerbase. As has been proven by motivations throughout this thread. You will either just say it doesn't influence their enjoyment, or that they have some form of inferior form of fun, or a superiority complex. Which really is just strawman arguments, or at best your opinion of those players.

 

> >Especially your analogies mostly have to do with life or death situations,

>

> I use analogies because some of you seem incapable of empathizing with the exact example. I tell you "a player wants a skin and cannot have it," and the appropriate reaction obviously *should* be "oh, that's sad, how can we help to fix that for him?" but since it isn't for some of you, I try to relate the situation to something that you *might* care about, or at least recognize that *others* would care about. I never attempt to imply that skin availability is a literal life or death matter, because nothing inside a game is a life or death matter, I'm just making the point that *within the limited scope of appropriate reactions within a game space,* these are *relatively* serious concerns.

You confuse not empathizing with disagreeing. Considering that a large majority of the rewards are available to pretty much everyone, then this definitely isn't a serious issue. At best it's an annoyance for those who want that specific reward. This doesn't mean that people don't understand that it can be frustrating not being able to do, or not liking the content. And more putting it as a necessary evil because of such broad views on what is entertainment in this game. If anything it's a live and let live situation. Recognizing that opinions don't always mix, regardless of it fits our own desires of what makes a perfect game.

If you haven't noticed, there's lots of posts where people react like "I don't like this, but I know other people like this."

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

>I'm not making any fun of anything. The enjoyment of a game with multiple aspects like this will never completely appeal to you. If you enjoy the game only when these specific terms are met, that is not a healthy relationship you're having with the game.

 

But that's not the point being made here. The point being made here is that I, as a player, would enjoy the game MORE if more terms were met. It's like if someone gives me a piece of chocolate cake, that's nice, it will make me happy, but if it had mocha buttercream frosting, that would be even better, and if the bitter/sweet ratio were well balanced, that would be even better. I don't understand why you're concerned it would be an "issue" for a player to seek out the best possible state, other than that you've given up on attacking the message and just want to shoot the messenger to end the discussion, portraying it as a viewpoint that only a mentally unstable person could hold, when of course it's the exact viewpoint *you* are holding as well.

 

> There is no way your uniform approach will appeal to the broadest playerbase. As has been proven by motivations throughout this thread.

 

You use the word "proven" incorrectly. The word you're searching for there is "asserted," "as has been *asserted* by motivations throughout this thread." Nobody has done anything whatsoever to *prove* that this strategy would not appeal to the broadest playerbase.

 

>You confuse not empathizing with disagreeing.

 

No, I don't. I use both terms appropriately. You *can* disagree while still showing empathy. You have not done so. So far I can't think of a single person in this thread who has. The reaction is typically more along the lines of "they won't get what they want *and I'm glad about that."* The "mwahahahaha" part at the end is optional, but seemingly encouraged, and at the very least implied.

 

>Considering that a large majority of the rewards are available to pretty much everyone, then this definitely isn't a serious issue. At best it's an annoyance for those who want that specific reward.

 

That's entirely subjective. As I noted, it doesn't matter in the slightest how available "the large majority" of anything is, if [the thing a person wants] is not included within that body.

[Skyric.9246]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

> Again, I ask, which of those skins does that animation thing when you enter combat?

 

Yes Legendary Armor is the only set, as far as I am aware, that has an animation thing when you enter combat, but so what? It's hardly the only armor with effects, and second, again can't someone be happy with another set? You act like there are only 2 states, 100% happiness, which can only be achieved in this case if a person can get each and every skin they want however they want, and 100% sadness if the person can't get each and every skin they want however they want.

 

> But again, the number of options is completely irrelevant, nobody needs that many options. When matters is that the options *available* are the ones that the player *wants.* Better to have 50 options and all of them good ones, than to have 4950 and have none of those good ones in the pile.

 

No, the number of options is critical to the discussion, because with roughly 5,000 choices the odds should be very high that somewhere in the 5,000 a reasonable player can find a set of items that is available to him that makes him happy. If there were all of a sudden only 10 skins available in the game, and 8 of them were locked behind raids, then I think a complaint about that would be legitimate, even though it is possible that someone could prefer the 2 non-raid skins over the 8 raid skins. But the overwhelming majority of skins are available to the overwhelming majority of players.

 

This is where relative happiness and sadness comes into play. Of course I can understand that someone wants a skin and may be annoyed that it's unavailable to him for whatever reason. My issue, though, is how annoyed the person is. Like I've said before, I can understand someone feeling something like, "I want Legendary Armor, that looks real cool, but I can't raid, that's a bummer," and leaving it at that. And I can empathize to a degree. But no I can't sympathize with a person who feels like that one fact overrides everything else the person could possibly enjoy about the game, such that the person is generally sad. And I especially have no sympathy for a person that somehow thinks that raids being in the game and having exclusive skins poisoned the game experience for them and they want to quit over it. I would expect that a reasonable person, out of the 5,000 available choices, could find a set of skins that puts him into the "happy" state, such that he is satisfied with the game, even if it doesn't have the animation thing when you enter combat. And if there are people out there that don't like anything out of the 5,000 options, or can't at least find a set out of those choices that they think is cool and would enjoy wearing without whining, I really don't think Anet should be overly concerned with those people. The issue isn't whether everyone can get what they want however they want. That's impossible with too many slippery slopes and strawmen and would require the elimination of anything themed--person A wants the SAB warhorn but hates SAB and whines that he has to get SAB to do it; person B wants the Arah dungeon armor, but despises group play so he won't do dungeons, and also hates pvp and wvw, so the reward tracks aren't an option either, but nonetheless demands the Arah armor be available yet another way; person C likes a staff that drops rainbows on the ground, but either can't or won't take the time to go through the process of crafting Bifrost, or doesn't want so spend the necessary gold to get it, so he cries because a rainbow staff isn't available another way.

 

The only thing Anet can be asked to do is provide enough options out there such that a reasonable person can find a set that they enjoy, that generally makes them happy, even though it might not be their first choice. And they've done that in spades. My response to a person who wants a game mode change or a skin rework change in this game, is "Man, I'm sorry you can't get the one skin you want, but surely you can find something else out of the 5,000 available options that makes you happy, right?"

 

> You call it "hypersensitivity," I call it "exactly the right amount of sensitivity for that person to have." If someone is "hypersensitive" for caring that the skin they want is made unavailable to them, then certainly you would agree that someone else would be far *more* hypersensitive for being *upset* at the idea of that person having access to the skin, right?

 

I don't think it's hypersensitive to be minorly annoyed, but it is if someone gets seriously bent out of shape over it with the amount of options available. And no, I don't have a problem with exclusive skins. No one cares about titles except for things that demonstrate kill proof for forming groups. Again, because of the options available, there is no real issue with prestige-based, challenge-based skins to me. Not being able to get the one skin does not in any reasonable way constitute being left out in the cold. I actually think a little more wouldn't hurt a bit, like for being able to do the most difficult instance-based jumping puzzles without mesmer ports or mounts numerous times, even if I'd never be able to get it. I'd find another set that made me happy.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Skyric.9246" said:

> Yes Legendary Armor is the only set, as far as I am aware, that has an animation thing when you enter combat, but so what? It's hardly the only armor with effects, and second, again can't someone be happy with another set?

 

Sure, but *less* happy, and why should anyone settle for *less* happy when they can advocate for improved happiness?

 

> You act like there are only 2 states, 100% happiness, which can only be achieved in this case if a person can get each and every skin they want however they want, and 100% sadness if the person can't get each and every skin they want however they want.

 

No, *you* act like there are only two states. *I* advocate that while there are plenty of states in between 0% and 100% happiness, there's no reason to settle for anything less than 100%. If someone is stuck at 90%, that means they have 10% left to work towards.

 

>No, the number of options is critical to the discussion, because with roughly 5,000 choices the odds should be very high that somewhere in the 5,000 a reasonable player can find a set of items that is available to him that makes him happy.

 

But again, it's entirely subjective and not a numbers game.

 

> If there were all of a sudden only 10 skins available in the game, and 8 of them were locked behind raids, then I think a complaint about that would be legitimate, even though it is possible that someone could prefer the 2 non-raid skins over the 8 raid skins. But the overwhelming majority of skins are available to the overwhelming majority of players.

 

Ok, now take your example, except instead of only 10 skins available, there were 5000 skins available, 8 of them locked behind raids, but the one you *wanted* was within those 8.

 

> My issue, though, is how annoyed the person is. Like I've said before, I can understand someone feeling something like, "I want Legendary Armor, that looks real cool, but I can't raid, that's a bummer," and leaving it at that.

 

And yet you can't understand "I want to keep Legendary Armor exclusive to players like *me*, but I can't, that's a bummer," and leaving it at that?

 

Why do you believe that players who want to keep skins *away* from other players are more entitled to be happy than players who would like to have those skins?

 

> But no I can't sympathize with a person who feels like that one fact overrides everything else the person could possibly enjoy about the game, such that the person is generally sad.

 

Ok, but now that we've gotten that strawman out of your system, how do you feel about the *actual* players of the game?

 

>And I especially have no sympathy for a person that somehow thinks that raids being in the game and having exclusive skins poisoned the game experience for them and they want to quit over it.

 

Why? Keep in mind, the player in question isn't even likely to realize that he feels that way. It's not like he will consciously say "I didn't get the skin I want, I'll quit!" More likely, it's just one of a number of straws that will eventually break the camel's back. It will be a collection of negative feelings about various elements of the game that add up to a player logging in less and less, until he stops logging in at all. The more of those straws we can remove, the better. He may not even quit the game itself, but if he has a less favorable view of the state of the game and how it's treating him, then he's less likely to open his wallet for gem store items that the game thrives on. It's not a binary "play or quit" situation in a game with this one's monetization model.

 

>That's impossible with too many slippery slopes and strawmen and would require the elimination of anything themed--person A wants the SAB warhorn but hates SAB and whines that he has to get SAB to do it; person B wants the Arah dungeon armor, but despises group play so he won't do dungeons, and also hates pvp and wvw, so the reward tracks aren't an option either, but nonetheless demands the Arah armor be available yet another way; person C likes a staff that drops rainbows on the ground, but either can't or won't take the time to go through the process of crafting Bifrost, or doesn't want so spend the necessary gold to get it, so he cries because a rainbow staff isn't available another way.

 

None of those are slippery slopes or strawmen, they are all completely resolvable situations, and should be resolved. So long as a player generally enjoys the game, he should be able to find a viable path to getting the thing he wants, rather than being shoehorned into a specific path that may not have anything to do with the portions of the game he enjoys.

 

>My response to a person who wants a game mode change or a skin rework change in this game, is "Man, I'm sorry you can't get the one skin you want, but surely you can find something else out of the 5,000 available options that makes you happy, right?"

 

That shows poor listening skills.

 

>Not being able to get the one skin does not in any reasonable way constitute being left out in the cold. I actually think a little more wouldn't hurt a bit, like for being able to do the most difficult instance-based jumping puzzles without mesmer ports or mounts numerous times, even if I'd never be able to get it. I'd find another set that made me happy.

 

Having *rewards* for completing difficult tasks is great, definitely have as many or more of those, but they should not be rewards that would have any purpose to them *other* than to denote that a milestone has been reached, they should not be something that any player would want *unless* they wanted to complete that milestone and be recognized for that achievement.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> If anything, at this point Im thinking its probably healthy that players realise that not everything is and will be available to them incase of gaming addiction.

Why should legendary armor be less available to players than legendary weapons?

 

[flog.3485]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > If anything, at this point Im thinking its probably healthy that players realise that not everything is and will be available to them incase of gaming addiction.

> Why should legendary armor be less available to players than legendary weapons?

>

Just chiming in but I will tell you why. Because devs value content out of open world and they did want, over the years, to produce some difficult content.