On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Sarrs.4831]

The video makes a big case about accessibility, and this is what fundamentally undercuts the easy mode argument: multiple difficulty modes harms accessibility.

 

If you have two difficulty modes, one is easy and one is hard:

If easy mode and hard mode provide identical rewards, including uniquities, the hard mode will never be run and become inaccessible.

If easy mode provides no or poor rewards, you will never get many players to run it, making it inaccessible.

 

If you want an easy mode that is genuinely accessible to the majority of the playerbase, you need a solo player mode- but that is a fundamentally different experience which takes a pretty big amount of developer effort.

 

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> I've read some of your posts - not all because they are too long and annoying to read - since months and yours are completely different because you want to have rewards quasi via login. That's not what the real respectable easy mode raid people want to achieve.

 

Also yeah this, I never read these threads and think "genuine want for easy mode" I think "sneaky attempt to get rewards for free".

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

>If you have two difficulty modes, one is easy and one is hard:

>If easy mode and hard mode provide identical rewards, including uniquities, the hard mode will never be run and become inaccessible.

>If easy mode provides no or poor rewards, you will never get many players to run it, making it inaccessible.

 

Not true. You do need to balance them, you do need to make it so that the *quantity* of reward in hard mode is high enough that if someone can complete hard mode they will say "I should do hard mode, because I will get more for my time investment," but not *so* high that people feel the easy mode is not worth doing at all. People who genuinely enjoy hard mode should feel that hard mode is worth doing, people who don't enjoy hard mode should never feel like they have to, assuming that both groups exist in sufficient numbers, nobody should have a hard time finding a party. If either group *doesn't* have sufficient numbers to find a party under those circumstances, then you do not *deserve* to be able to rope in players that apparently don't want to be there.

 

>If you want an easy mode that is genuinely accessible to the majority of the playerbase, you need a solo player mode- but that is a fundamentally different experience which takes a pretty big amount of developer effort.

 

Yeah, that would be way too different an experience to make any sense. The point is not to remove other players from the equation, it's just to reduce the chances that their failures (or yours) could ruin things for the rest of the group.

 

>Also yeah this, I never read these threads and think "genuine want for easy mode" I think "sneaky attempt to get rewards for free".

 

Well that's your own biases at play, it certainly has nothing to do with my position. I've been very up front about what I want, I genuinely want easy mode, and I genuinely want it to be a *path* toward rewards, but at NO point have I advocated for " getting rewards for free". My proposal *ALWAYS* involves effort, just effort along a different, more enjoyable path.

[Sarrs.4831]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Not true. You do need to balance them, you do need to make it so that the *quantity* of reward in hard mode is high enough that if someone can complete hard mode they will say "I should do hard mode, because I will get more for my time investment," but not *so* high that people feel the easy mode is not worth doing at all.

 

No, people going up to hard mode is not the problem. People coming back down from hard mode is. Learning the hard mode of an encounter is a one-time investment that once you've done, makes doing easy mode pointless, permanently removing players from that pool outside of exterior non-reward motives.

 

This is a problem with fractals. Once you're in T4s, outside of the specific fractal daily (don't even know if this is a worthwhile way to spend your time), there's no reason to go back down to lower tiers.

 

& as usual it's easy to say "well just balance them perfectly" but that's a copout and you know that.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

>No, people going up to hard mode is not the problem. People coming back down from hard mode is.

 

No, that's not a problem either. If that's what they want to do, then that's their choice, and if it inconveniences you that they're happier doing something else, then that is your problem, not their's, and not ANet's.

 

>Learning the hard mode of an encounter is a one-time investment that once you've done, makes doing easy mode pointless, permanently removing players from that pool outside of exterior non-reward motives.

 

And for people who want to do that, that's fine. For people who don't, an alternative is preferable.

 

>This is a problem with fractals. Once you're in T4s, outside of the specific fractal daily (don't even know if this is a worthwhile way to spend your time), there's no reason to go back down to lower tiers.

 

This is not intended for people who are T4s, it's intended for people who don't want to ever be T4s. Just out of curiosity, is there any way of knowing how many people play T2 and below fractals in a given day?

 

>& as usual it's easy to say "well just balance them perfectly" but that's a copout and you know that.

 

They don't need to be perfectly balanced. They need to be balanced enough that both the following conditions are true:

 

1. That people _capable_ of doing the hard version, and who _enjoy_ doing the hard version, feel that the hard version is a better use of their time and effort than doing the easy version.

2. That people _incapable_ of doing the hard version, or who would not _enjoy_ the hard version, feel that their time spent in the easy version is still a worthwhile use of their own time and effort, and allows them to meaningfully progress toward any of the same goals, if at a more leisurely pace.

 

So long as both conditions are met, there doesn't need to be any sort of *"perfect"* balance, and I'm sure at least some on each side would grouse a bit about how one offered 'too much" or "not enough" for their tastes, but you'd still have those inclined to play hard mode playing hard mode, and those inclined to play easy mode playing easy mode.

[Sarrs.4831]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Sarrs.4831" said:

> >No, people going up to hard mode is not the problem. People coming back down from hard mode is.

>

> No, that's not a problem either. If that's what they want to do, then that's their choice, and if it inconveniences you that they're happier doing something else, then that is your problem, not their's, and not ANet's.

>

> >Learning the hard mode of an encounter is a one-time investment that once you've done, makes doing easy mode pointless, permanently removing players from that pool outside of exterior non-reward motives.

>

> And for people who want to do that, that's fine. For people who don't, an alternative is preferable.

 

You've not actually read what I've written. These are the same point, not two separate points. Read through the whole post (or at least the whole paragraph), process it, then write a response.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Sarrs.4831" said:

> > >No, people going up to hard mode is not the problem. People coming back down from hard mode is.

> >

> > No, that's not a problem either. If that's what they want to do, then that's their choice, and if it inconveniences you that they're happier doing something else, then that is your problem, not their's, and not ANet's.

> >

> > >Learning the hard mode of an encounter is a one-time investment that once you've done, makes doing easy mode pointless, permanently removing players from that pool outside of exterior non-reward motives.

> >

> > And for people who want to do that, that's fine. For people who don't, an alternative is preferable.

>

> You've not actually read what I've written. These are the same point, not two separate points. Read through the whole post (or at least the whole paragraph), process it, then write a response.

 

No. I gave my response, if that's not sufficient, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > I have nothing against easy modes as long as no raid & fractal ressources/developers are incorporated and no specific rewards given (no shards, no ascs things, no collection items etc. - just greens and blues + 1 rare per easy mode boss).

>

> That only solves half the problem though. How then would players who don't raid get access to the weapons or armor skins that are currently locked behind raiding? If raiding can be "not for everyone's tastes," then there need to be other methods.

 

If you don't do the content you don't get the rewards tied to it. Gw2 always had specific content for specific rewards. (it also had rewards that are shared yes, they aren't mutually exclusive)

 

There is no inherent need for all rewards to be available for everyone. For wintersday skins you need to do wintersday, for halloween skins you do halloween. For raid skins you do raids. For PvP skins you do PvP. That's how every RPG works. You are not worthy if you didn't finish the corresponding challenges.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > I have nothing against easy modes as long as no raid & fractal ressources/developers are incorporated and no specific rewards given (no shards, no ascs things, no collection items etc. - just greens and blues + 1 rare per easy mode boss).

>

> That only solves half the problem though. How then would players who don't raid get access to the weapons or armor skins that are currently locked behind raiding?

 

Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Because I think everything should be obtainable though the means *they* personally like. I totally agree that there should be open world methods of obtaining The Ascension, and PvP methods for obtaining Legendary weapons, and so on. Every mode should have a path to every reward, so that players who want a certain skin should never be forced to play a mode that they do not enjoy. In before strawmen.

 

There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes. Nothing at all wrong with it, but they are literally just hopping from one boss they autoattack to the next, stopping only to RP in a quaagan tonic.

 

Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor? Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

 

[Sarrs.4831]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Because I think everything should be obtainable though the means *they* personally like. I totally agree that there should be open world methods of obtaining The Ascension, and PvP methods for obtaining Legendary weapons, and so on. Every mode should have a path to every reward, so that players who want a certain skin should never be forced to play a mode that they do not enjoy. In before strawmen.

>

> There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes. Nothing at all wrong with it, but they are literally just hopping from one boss they autoattack to the next, stopping only to RP in a quaagan tonic.

>

> Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor? Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

>

 

I've put over 10000 hours into erping in salma district and i still dont have a legendary

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

>If you don't do the content you don't get the rewards tied to it.

 

Then the content has to be open and accessible to all players, including those who only want to play lower difficulty content. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

 

>Gw2 always had specific content for specific rewards. (it also had rewards that are shared yes, they aren't mutually exclusive)

 

That is not a justification for anything.

 

>There is no inherent need for all rewards to be available for everyone.

 

Why not? If you have a player who wants that reward, but does not want to do the specific content associated with it, how do you make that customer happy? Tell him he can't have the reward? That wouldn't make him happy. Tell hm he has to do the content? That wouldn't make him happy. Why do you believe that player should be left unsatisfied with the state of the game?

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

 

It is a problem, and that needs fixing too, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes.

 

Sounds great for the game, that should be encouraged.

 

>Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor?

 

Can you think of a reason why it shouldn't?

 

>Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

 

Why not?

 

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

> I've put over 10000 hours into erping in salma district and i still dont have a legendary

 

Ok.

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

> > @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes.

>

> Sounds great for the game, that should be encouraged.

>

> >Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor?

>

> Can you think of a reason why it shouldn't?

>

> >Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

>

> Why not?

 

Now I know you're just trolling.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

>

> > > @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > > There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes.

> >

> > Sounds great for the game, that should be encouraged.

> >

> > >Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor?

> >

> > Can you think of a reason why it shouldn't?

> >

> > >Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

> >

> > Why not?

>

> Now I know you're just trolling.

>

>

 

No, I just have a different opinion than you do, I believe.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> >If you don't do the content you don't get the rewards tied to it.

>

> Then the content has to be open and accessible to all players, including those who only want to play lower difficulty content. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

>

> >Gw2 always had specific content for specific rewards. (it also had rewards that are shared yes, they aren't mutually exclusive)

>

> That is not a justification for anything.

>

> >There is no inherent need for all rewards to be available for everyone.

>

> Why not? If you have a player who wants that reward, but does not want to do the specific content associated with it, how do you make that customer happy? Tell him he can't have the reward? That wouldn't make him happy. Tell hm he has to do the content? That wouldn't make him happy. Why do you believe that player should be left unsatisfied with the state of the game?

>

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

>

> It is a problem, and that needs fixing too, but that's not what we're talking about here.

>

> > @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > There is a significant number of players who only do world bosses one after the other. And I don't mean Teq or Triple Trouble. I mean they taxi from one low threat "Press 1" encounter to the next like Shadow Behemoth, the Karka Queen, Jungle Wurm ect. They have tons of fun doing it, but mainly it's a reason to be social, fire off dance emotes and drop Fun Boxes.

>

> Sounds great for the game, that should be encouraged.

>

> >Do you think this playstyle should also have a path to legendary armor?

>

> Can you think of a reason why it shouldn't?

>

> >Do you think standing among 50 other people autoattacking with zero actual challenge should have the same rewards as time spent wiping on raid bosses?

>

> Why not?

>

 

A few months ago their was a thread which asked what would you do if you got infinite amounts of gold.

Most people said they probably would quit the game cause their is almost nothing to work towards anymore.

 

This is why not every reward should be made for everyone. You would kill a part of the motivation to get that reward which is in contrast to what you believe is a bad thing for the game.

 

I want to make something clear. This is only an statement about you're opinion that all rewards should be open to everyone. my stance to easy mode is mostly neutral although i always wonder why the people who hate raids so much want more raids apparently.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

>

> It is a problem, and that needs fixing too, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

It's a "problem" you'll find in any game as diverse as this one. Do you even consider, if only for a moment, that your opinion might in fact be wrong?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

>A few months ago their was a thread which asked what would you do if you got infinite amounts of gold.

> Most people said they probably would quit the game cause their is almost nothing to work towards anymore.

 

Really? That's odd. I have a decent amount of gold at this point, but there really hasn't been a whole lot I'd want to buy with it. It's weird that so many players would be so obsessed with gold. Most goals in the game have nothing to do with gold.

 

>This is why not every reward should be made for everyone. You would kill a part of the motivation to get that reward which is in contrast to what you believe is a bad thing for the game.

 

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I wasn't talking about removing any goals or shortcutting any goals, if they implemented easy mode raids it wouldn't allow anyone to get anything with less time or effort. All that would change is that instead of spending [amount of time X] in hard mode raiding, which they may not enjoy, they would have the option to instead spend [amount of time X] in an easy mode raid, which they might enjoy more. They would be spending the same amount of time playing the game, they would just enjoy the experience more, so how would that harm anyone?

 

I make the same point on any other arguments of alternate loot methods, if they ever did open up something like "legendary armor from easy world bosses," it definitely shouldn't be a short path of progression, it would take a LONG time given the low effort nature of the events, but I don't see why it should be entirely off the table, and having more options somewhere in between would be nice.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

> >

> > It is a problem, and that needs fixing too, but that's not what we're talking about here.

>

> It's a "problem" you'll find in any game as diverse as this one. Do you even consider, if only for a moment, that your opinion might in fact be wrong?

 

Yes, do you? I've looked at the issue from all sides, I've listened to everything you have been saying, this is the position I've landed on. Shoehorning people into specific content for long periods of time benefits no one and only punishes people who don't enjoy that type of content. The pros of changing that far outweigh any cons.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > > Same way the people who don't pvp get The Ascension, people who don't WvW get Sublime Mistforged and people who don't map-complete get gen 2 legendaries. They don't. And it's not a problem.

> > >

> > > It is a problem, and that needs fixing too, but that's not what we're talking about here.

> >

> > It's a "problem" you'll find in any game as diverse as this one. Do you even consider, if only for a moment, that your opinion might in fact be wrong?

>

> Yes, do you? I've looked at the issue from all sides, I've listened to everything you have been saying, this is the position I've landed on. Shoehorning people into specific content for long periods of time benefits no one and only punishes people who don't enjoy that type of content. The pros of changing that far outweigh any cons.

 

No, you haven't. You've ignored everything anyone said that didn't suit your already established opinion. And your established opinion is formed purely on the basis of "I want this". You don't understand gamedev basics **by choice**, simply because they mean you can't have every possible reward without breaking a virtual sweat. Even though it's plain as day this would make a game intended to be played across years boring in a matter of days. But you don't care about that because it doesn't suit your selfish motivation.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> No, you haven't. You've ignored everything anyone said that didn't suit your already established opinion.

 

No no, don't be confused. I have ignored nothing. I have listened, I have taken in, I have considered, and I have reached the conclusion that those positions are still incorrect. Failing to agree with you does not indicate any lack of attention or consideration on my part, have you ever considered, if only for a moment, that *your* opinion might in fact be wrong?

 

>And your established opinion is formed purely on the basis of "I want this".

 

I don't see how you could reach that position if you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying. My position is not merely because "I want this," but rather because I believe that it would be in the best interests of the game as a whole. I believe that the most players would benefit from it, and improve the overall player retention and engagement. Some of you disagree on that, but that does not mean you're necessarily right.

 

>You don't understand gamedev basics by choice, simply because they mean you can't have every possible reward without breaking a virtual sweat.

 

No, I fully *understand* them, I just disagree with how ANet has chosen to apply them in some cases, and which you seem to support.

 

>Even though it's plain as day this would make a game intended to be played across years boring in a matter of days.

 

In no way would it do that. Instead, it would enrich the game, by opening up more opportunities for players to enjoy the game, rather than limiting rewards only to certain modes whether they enjoy those modes or not. It would do absolutely nothing to harm the enjoyment of players.

 

>But you don't care about that because it doesn't suit your selfish motivation.

 

It's not selfish at all. I've said before that even if the developers were to hand me everything I was interested in on a silver platter, I would still believe that these policies would be better for the game as a whole, and would continue to push for their adoption. If any side in this is selfish, it seems to be yours, since you want to horde certain rewards into a game mode you happen to enjoy, rather than allowing them to be available to more people.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> In no way would it do that. Instead, it would enrich the game, by opening up more opportunities for players to enjoy the game

 

See? You fail to understand basics because you don't want to.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > In no way would it do that. Instead, it would enrich the game, by opening up more opportunities for players to enjoy the game

>

> See? You fail to understand basics because you don't want to.

 

No, again, I understand the issue at least as well as you do, it's not an issue of "understanding." I just disagree with you. I don't accuse you of not understanding anything other than my own position in this. I believe you understand your *own* position quite well, and perhaps you understand mine as well, but the number of times you've misrepresented it makes me doubtful that you do. And *if* you do understand my position, then you're misrepresenting it deliberately, which would be particularly rude and unhelpful. So tell me, what is it that you struggle to understand, and how can I help you?

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> >A few months ago their was a thread which asked what would you do if you got infinite amounts of gold.

> > Most people said they probably would quit the game cause their is almost nothing to work towards anymore.

>

> Really? That's odd. I have a decent amount of gold at this point, but there really hasn't been a whole lot I'd want to buy with it. It's weird that so many players would be so obsessed with gold. Most goals in the game have nothing to do with gold.

>

> >This is why not every reward should be made for everyone. You would kill a part of the motivation to get that reward which is in contrast to what you believe is a bad thing for the game.

>

> That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I wasn't talking about removing any goals or shortcutting any goals, if they implemented easy mode raids it wouldn't allow anyone to get anything with less time or effort. All that would change is that instead of spending [amount of time X] in hard mode raiding, which they may not enjoy, they would have the option to instead spend [amount of time X] in an easy mode raid, which they might enjoy more. They would be spending the same amount of time playing the game, they would just enjoy the experience more, so how would that harm anyone?

>

> I make the same point on any other arguments of alternate loot methods, if they ever did open up something like "legendary armor from easy world bosses," it definitely shouldn't be a short path of progression, it would take a LONG time given the low effort nature of the events, but I don't see why it should be entirely off the table, and having more options somewhere in between would be nice.

 

My point was more that exclusivity is a motivation to go for a reward. If every reward is open for everyone it would reduce exclusivity of the reward no matter how long it would take to get that reward. Some people would consider this a bad thing. (Like all the people complaining that legendarys can be bought using your creditcard).

 

I believe that for a game in general it is a good idea that games have exclusive rewards based on the content. In general i think it is better to ask people to do a lot of different things in game because it creates longevity.

 

[Feanor.2358]

It's not a matter of positions or opinions, it's a simple fact. What you want is a sandbox game. However, sandbox games target totally different players than MMORPGs. Your average MMORPG player will get bored in a sandbox quickly, because there's nothing for him to do there. There's always some overlap, of course. I'm sure you'll find GW2 players who also play Minecraft for instance. But still, they don't come to GW2 for the sandbox experience, they come for the MMORPG one. This is why what you want will never happen. It will kill the game, swiftly and surely.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> My point was more that exclusivity is a motivation to go for a reward.

 

It can be, but of all possible motivations it would by far be one of the worst to kindle. Exclusivity as a motivation is one of the worst human traits, it's enjoyment at the expense of others, it's appreciating what you have *not* because you have it, but because others *don't.* How awful is that? That is not behavior that the developers should be encouraging. If a player cannot find enjoyment for the games because of the thing *he has,* but only because of what someone else *doesn't,* then he does not deserve to find enjoyment.

 

> If every reward is open for everyone it would reduce exclusivity of the reward no matter how long it would take to get that reward.

 

Ideally, yes.

 

>Some people would consider this a bad thing. (Like all the people complaining that legendarys can be bought using your creditcard).

 

Good.

 

>I believe that for a game in general it is a good idea that games have exclusive rewards based on the content. In general i think it is better to ask people to do a lot of different things in game because it creates longevity.

 

And that's fine, but I disagree. I feel like encouraging players to NOT enjoy what they are doing just leads to player burnout. I believe that developers should provide players plenty of gameplay *options,* and can gently nudge them toward each one, but they also need to respect player choice, and if a player decides that a certain gameplay mode is not their cup of tea, they should be allowed to leave without penalty and do something else. *Offer* them a lot of different things, *ask* only that they enjoy themselves.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> It's not a matter of positions or opinions, it's a simple fact. What you want is a sandbox game. However, sandbox games target totally different players than MMORPGs.

 

GW2 is a sandbox game. Most MMOs are sandbox games, to some extent.

 

I think maybe you mean something different here, but I don't understand what.

 

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > My point was more that exclusivity is a motivation to go for a reward.

>

> It can be, but of all possible motivations it would by far be one of the worst to kindle. Exclusivity as a motivation is one of the worst human traits, it's enjoyment at the expense of others, it's appreciating what you have *not* because you have it, but because others *don't.* How awful is that? That is not behavior that the developers should be encouraging. If a player cannot find enjoyment for the games because of the thing *he has,* but only because of what someone else *doesn't,* then he does not deserve to find enjoyment.

>

 

Sure but:

 

- Nobody appreciates what he has but they appreciate what they have in regard to other people. This is one of the only way to appreciate anyway (You only appreciate what you had once it's lost, etc).

- A game developer should care about the psychology of people, not on how they feel people should feel. The reason communism fails while it theoretically is so much better then capitalism is because it doesn't account for this part of human psychology.

 

In short while you're stance is theoretical more fair it doesn't account for basic human behavior which is why it will not work.

 

We have seen the effect of this already btw namely the creation of farms. Farms are not created because people enjoy doing them but because they give loot. In short people would still do things they don't enjoy just because it's faster.