On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

>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).

 

You should always appreciate what you have because you have it, not because others don't. Reward skins should be appreciated because YOU like that skin, because YOu think it looks good on YOU, because YOU enjoy what YOU did to earn it, not because of what anyone else has. You should appreciate a skin you have just as much if every other player has it as you would if you were the only player who had it.

 

>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.

 

Actually it's more often because human greed and lust for power causes those at the top to abuse their authority to bypass the rules everyone else has to live with. It's a complicated subject though, given that there are so many soci-economic factors that play into case study outcomes. The nice thing about a game is that what the players get is determined by the developers, not by other players gatekeeping each other, so that's a non-issue.

 

>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.

 

And if so, that's fine. It would be no different there than the current game. What matters is that players have *options,* that they can *choose* to do the things that they enjoy, while still progressing towards the goals that they want to achieve. If they choose to do otherwise instead, that's up to them.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> >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).

>

> You should always appreciate what you have because you have it, not because others don't. Reward skins should be appreciated because YOU like that skin, because YOu think it looks good on YOU, because YOU enjoy what YOU did to earn it, not because of what anyone else has. You should appreciate a skin you have just as much if every other player has it as you would if you were the only player who had it.

>

 

Where not talking about what should happen. I'm talking about how humans as a species behaves. You could find it the wrong way to behave in which i fully support you btw. But we can't ignore how they would respond in favor in how they should.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

>Where not talking about what should happen. I'm talking about how humans as a species behaves. You could find it the wrong way to behave in which i fully support you btw. But we can't ignore how they would respond in favor in how they should.

 

But how they would behave is that they would continue to play the game. Maybe they would prefer to have things that other players don't. Maybe they would prefer to be able to PK other players and take what they want off their corpse. That doesn't mean that the game has to allow it, that doesn't mean that the game as a whole would benefit from encouraging that sort of attitude. I'm not saying that every player would love having these items be less exclusive, I'm saying that more players would end up feeling better about their experiences with the game than would feel worse about it. It would be a net positive change to the game.

 

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> >Where not talking about what should happen. I'm talking about how humans as a species behaves. You could find it the wrong way to behave in which i fully support you btw. But we can't ignore how they would respond in favor in how they should.

>

> But how they would behave is that they would continue to play the game. Maybe they would prefer to have things that other players don't. Maybe they would prefer to be able to PK other players and take what they want off their corpse. That doesn't mean that the game has to allow it, that doesn't mean that the game as a whole would benefit from encouraging that sort of attitude. I'm not saying that every player would love having these items be less exclusive, I'm saying that more players would end up feeling better about their experiences with the game than would feel worse about it. It would be a net positive change to the game.

>

>

 

Well i believe that the game in general would be very bland if everything could be gotten everywhere. I believe it would be a net negative to the game. More people would get a negative experience then people would get a positive experience from having all the loot available everywhere. Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> Well i believe that the game in general would be very bland if everything could be gotten everywhere.

 

I understand that's your position, it's just one on which we disagree.

 

Can you understand that it is possible for us to each believe separate things?

 

>Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

 

That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

>

> >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

>

> That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

>

 

I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

>

 

You're missing the whole point. It's never about **having** in-game things. It's about **acquiring** them. Having is completely meaningless. They're just sequences of 0s and 1s, pixels on the screen. It's the process of getting them that makes them mean something to you and makes you appreciate them. This could be done either by making this process take effort or involve a lot of luck. Nobody gets excited by crafting or dropping a level 80 yellow. It's nothing remarkable and therefore it means nothing. People get excited by earning a reward taking a lot of effort, or dropping a precursor, things like that. Things that are inherently uncommon and not readily available. This is exactly what makes you remember how you got them and this, in turn, is their value. It's about the story of the item, not the item itself. You can't make that accessible. If you make it accessible, it becomes common and you destroy the story, and all the meaning together with it. You're not giving more rewards to more players, you're destroying rewards for **everyone**. Both for those who have earned them and for those who haven't.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >

> > >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

> >

> > That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

> >

>

> I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

 

That's because the things people have are generally lame. Historically most people don't have the things they want.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>You're missing the whole point. It's never about having in-game things. It's about acquiring them. Having is completely meaningless.

 

I disagree. Enjoying the thing you have is the important part. I got Bifrost not because it was hard to get (took me the better part of a *week!*), but because it left cool rainbow trails when my Thief went all flippy. I liked it so much after a year of having it that I just couldn't drop the staff to play a Deadeye. If you can't enjoy having the things you get, then what's even the point? Why not just put a literal carrot at the end of a stick and have you chase it for a few hours, and then once you get it, it just reappears in front of you?

 

If the point is in the chase, then why does it have to be a unique skin that some other player might actually *want* rather than just a pop-up that says "You did it! You did the thing!"

 

> Nobody gets excited by crafting or dropping a level 80 yellow. It's nothing remarkable and therefore it means nothing.

 

That's mostly because level 80 yellows are boring. When you craft something cool looking though, you can take a lot of joy in slapping that on. I think my Tempest is wearing some Embroidered armor right now.

 

>People get excited by earning a reward taking a lot of effort, or dropping a precursor, things like that. Things that are inherently uncommon and not readily available. This is exactly what makes you remember how you got them and this, in turn, is their value.

 

And that's fine. Nothing I'm talking about would take that away. At most I would just be giving players options as to what *their* story of earning that item would be. Did they get it by doing the hard mode raid? The easy mode raid? Something else? Up to them. Their story may not be your story, but that doesn't make it the *wrong* story.

 

>You're not giving more rewards to more players, you're destroying rewards for everyone. Both for those who have earned them and for those who haven't.

 

You're engaging in hyperbole.

 

 

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> You're engaging in hyperbole.

 

I'm really not.

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

 

No it is not.

In a Sandbox game the players create the world and narrative through their actions. Examples of this are EVE Online, Black Desert and the now defunct Star Wars Galaxies. GW2 is a Theme Park MMO in which the developers create the world and narrative like World of Warcraft or Star Wars The Old Republic.

 

In GW2 we see a castle that is already built and are told Jennah is the Queen. Then we are given a story about why she lives in the castle. In a Sandbox MMO the players are given the tools to build the castle and their actions and influence among other players indicate if they are the "Queen" or not.

 

In a Sandbox MMO a guild leader named Jennah and her guild called "The Krytans" may have created a castle and a rival guild of players called "The White Mantle" would have amassed resources to attack the castle. Meanwhile Jennah's guild may have defended what they as players had created.

In GW2 we are given a map like Lake Doric where we see the the Krytans and the White Mantle, two groups created by the developers, at war. In a sandbox game we would would have been given a more or less blank map with resources and systems to create the war if we so chose.

 

Most MMOs these days are not Sandboxes, they are Theme Parks.

Few successful MMOs include more than a few small sandbox elements as players who enjoy this gameplay tend to gravitate to games like Minecraft. The only real Sandbox elements of GW2 are it's non-linear approach to leveling and end-game, and to a certain extent WvW.

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > >

> > > >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

> > >

> > > That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

> > >

> >

> > I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

>

> That's because the things people have are generally lame. Historically most people don't have the things they want.

 

It's actually the reversed people don't want the things they have.

 

A king wants the land he doesn't posses, while the farmer wants the castle of the king. But at the end if you would give the castle to the farmer he would behave like the king and want more.

 

I agree that this is a horrible mentality but it is what the human condition results in.

[zealex.9410]

Almost every goal in game has a gold sink tied to it.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Almost every goal in game has a gold sink tied to it.

 

Of course. That's the way to keep monetary rewards across the game relevant and have at least some semblance of economy. Without the gold sinks you end up having something like Diablo 2 - a meaningless number nobody cares about.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

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

> > > >

> > > > >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

> > > >

> > > > That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

> >

> > That's because the things people have are generally lame. Historically most people don't have the things they want.

>

> It's actually the reversed people don't want the things they have.

>

> A king wants the land he doesn't posses, while the farmer wants the castle of the king. But at the end if you would give the castle to the farmer he would behave like the king and want more.

>

> I agree that this is a horrible mentality but it is what the human condition results in.

 

If you think about it, it's not that bad. The desire to do something, or to gain something, gives you direction and purpose. It's part of what makes us human. Horrible mentality? But it's this mentality that has taken us this far. If we were content with what we had, we'd still be primates.

[yann.1946]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"yann.1946" said:

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

> > > > >

> > > > > >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

> > > > >

> > > > > That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

> > >

> > > That's because the things people have are generally lame. Historically most people don't have the things they want.

> >

> > It's actually the reversed people don't want the things they have.

> >

> > A king wants the land he doesn't posses, while the farmer wants the castle of the king. But at the end if you would give the castle to the farmer he would behave like the king and want more.

> >

> > I agree that this is a horrible mentality but it is what the human condition results in.

>

> If you think about it, it's not that bad. The desire to do something, or to gain something, gives you direction and purpose. It's part of what makes us human. Horrible mentality? But it's this mentality that has taken us this far. If we were content with what we had, we'd still be primates.

 

Well wanting things you don't have isn't intrinsically bad but it also does a lot of harm.

 

It leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality for example.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

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

> > > > > @"yann.1946" said:

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >Please don't underestimate the consequences of what you're asking as it is in direct contrast with how humans perceive reward.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That isn't true. It just plays off some elements rather than others. Plenty of people, in plenty of situations, are capable of enjoying the things they have, rather than the things that others don't. Reducing the exclusivity of a reward may diminish its appeal to some people, but making it available to others would greatly increase its value to them, and that's more important. Any player that can have a thing, and feel satisfied that he has it, is worth considerably more than someone who can only enjoy a thing if he can keep it out of the hands of others.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I just think their is a considerable bigger percentage of people who like things in regard to what other people have then that their are people who are happy with what they have. My motivation for this is mostly history and the fact that almost nobody is grateful for the simple things in their life.

> > > >

> > > > That's because the things people have are generally lame. Historically most people don't have the things they want.

> > >

> > > It's actually the reversed people don't want the things they have.

> > >

> > > A king wants the land he doesn't posses, while the farmer wants the castle of the king. But at the end if you would give the castle to the farmer he would behave like the king and want more.

> > >

> > > I agree that this is a horrible mentality but it is what the human condition results in.

> >

> > If you think about it, it's not that bad. The desire to do something, or to gain something, gives you direction and purpose. It's part of what makes us human. Horrible mentality? But it's this mentality that has taken us this far. If we were content with what we had, we'd still be primates.

>

> Well wanting things you don't have isn't intrinsically bad but it also does a lot of harm.

>

> It leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality for example.

 

Pretty much any feature that gives you an advantage comes with a downside. :)

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >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?

 

You simply cant make everyone happy. Its the fact with any game. Like there will always be parts of life you dont like, there will always be parts of a game you dont like.

Trying to pursue some state of the game where everything and every reward is obtained in a "fun" way in a game as big as an MMO with a community with so many conflicting ideas of what is a fun game, is pure and utter folly. Theres no ideal state of the game where that is possible, some compromises will need to be made. Providing a wide variety of content with some unique rewards and some universal rewards is the only way where players actually can have what they like, be rewarded the way they enjoy but also have to ignore or deal with some parts of the game that are less enjoyable to them.

 

Your idea that rewards quote on quote have to be accessible by everyone is never going to float unless a significant amount of people are going to feel screwed over.

 

And I know youre just want to bring up some majority-statement that its less people this and that, but GW2 has niches to fill, Arenanet wants to fill those niche entertainment communities. In fact GW2 wouldn't have this amount of popularity by generating generic big brand "everything needs to be this way" content but instead varies their content over specific areas which not everyone might like or they took(or take) risks in specific areas in order to entice different kind of gamers.

 

There is rarely any justification for why the game is designed in a certain and why it couldnt be different because its subjective. My statement that the game currently is like that isnt as much a justification as much as it is me saying this is not going to ever change.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"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?

>

Why would you think that playstyle is any worse than those of raiders? Both groups do what they like to do and have fun out of it. One way of having fun is not in any way superior to the other. And that's all this game should be about - having fun.

 

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

> 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.

There's no need for any such reason to exist. You _should_ be encouraged to do the harder version, I's just that this encouragement should never be _too_ strong.

And no, it doesn't mean easy mode would become inaccessible. Dungeon story mode is practically a wasteland currently, due to really badly balanced rewards (on top of dungeons being abandoned by devs, of course), but it's still extremely accessible. Practically _any_ pug can do them, the only question is how long would that take.

 

> @"Sarrs.4831" said:

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

If you really think it's about getting rewards _for free_, well, that's your problem for either completely misunderstanding the whole discussion, or for being way too biased about any non-current difficulty raid content.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> 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.

And some consider it a good thing.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> (Like all the people complaining that legendarys can be bought using your creditcard).

The main complaint about buying legendaries with creditcard was not based around exclusivity, but about being able to get the legendaries without putting any effort in game. Most of those people did not have any problems with opening more paths to legendaries. They just wanted those paths to not be too trivial.

Notice, that the complains would likely have been much, much smaller if there was no gems to gold exchange.

 

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> 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.

Raid armor is not based on the content. It's merely locked behind it. That's a world of difference.

[thrag.9740]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sarrs.4831" said:

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

> If you really think it's about getting rewards _for free_, well, that's your problem for either completely misunderstanding the whole discussion, or for being way too biased about any non-current difficulty raid content.

 

Yeah its not like the op said that non-raiders should be given raid exclusive rewards....

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Nah. There's no reason why players who enjoy higher difficulty content should receive significantly higher rewards than those who enjoy lower difficulty content. Play how you want to play. When the higher difficulty versions take more time to complete, they can receive slightly more rewards, comparable to the time they take, but there's no reason why they should have rewards unique to those modes, or have massively higher quantities of rewards.

[yann.1946]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> >

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > 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.

> Raid armor is not based on the content. It's merely locked behind it. That's a world of difference.

 

It basically is the same thing. It is in general a good idea to give rewards for doing specific content. The WvW ascended armour is a good example of this.

 

And can we please start calling the PvE legendary armour HOT armour instead of raid armour. It makes a lot more sense to call it that anyway.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"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?

> >

> Why would you think that playstyle is any worse than those of raiders? Both groups do what they like to do and have fun out of it. One way of having fun is not in any way superior to the other. And that's all this game should be about - having fun.

 

You can't just throw the "fun" argument in a vacuum. Fun is a complex matter and reward is a part of it. The feeling of putting more effort and not getting a just reward ruins the fun. Yea, I don't mind people world boss training. I've done it myself. But let's be realistic, it can't offer any substantial rewards, except as extremely rare drops (Tequatl's ascended drops being a prime example). If their rewards were comparable to fractals/raids, everyone would do just that. Path of least resistance. It doesn't matter if I enjoy raiding more, there'd be noone to raid with. See dungeon LFGs and imagine you needed to fill 10-man group for a dungeon run.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > 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.

> And some consider it a good thing.

 

However, that's not a matter of opinion. It's a game design fact. Exclusive rewards are inherently better. They give better motivation, which leads to greater satisfaction. You make players play more, and they are happier about it. It's a win-win.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Raid armor is not based on the content. It's merely locked behind it. That's a world of difference.

Oh really? Do explain that world of difference, please. :)

 

 

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > 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.

> > And some consider it a good thing.

>

> However, that's not a matter of opinion. It's a game design fact. Exclusive rewards are inherently better. They give better motivation, which leads to greater satisfaction. You make players play more, and they are happier about it. It's a win-win.

>

 

Well it really depends on the content. You can have the most exclusive rewards possible where every other thing is only obtainable through very specific tasks. But if the content is monotonous and uninteresting it might just be better to form more universal rewards.

 

Exclusive rewards aren't automatically better at all times. But depending on the content it can be.

 

Just imagine a unique reward to every single heart task which would require you to that same heart numerous times to finally get that ultimate heart task related reward. That doesnt work well at all.

 

That's not to say that I dont agree with exclusive rewards, but that is to say exclusive rewards are only better where they make sense. Just as universal rewards are better where those make sense.

 

So in the case of an unique feat, I think that perfectly warrants a unique reward.

 

[zealex.9410]

Maaan the u ique rewarxs discussion and my addiction to mhw makes me wish there was a full armor set for each of the big world bosses.

 

Designed with the creature's design in mind as an exclusive reward for messing up that specific world boss.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> You can't just throw the "fun" argument in a vacuum. Fun is a complex matter and reward is a part of it. The feeling of putting more effort and not getting a just reward ruins the fun.

Sure. But "just reward" doesn't need to be exclusive. And obviously it's highly subjective. Usually people doing (and liking) a certain type of content tend to see that content as more important than the ones they don't like, and thus think that they deserve better rewards than those from that other content even when there's no real reason for that.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Yea, I don't mind people world boss training. I've done it myself. But let's be realistic, it can't offer any substantial rewards, except as extremely rare drops (Tequatl's ascended drops being a prime example). If their rewards were comparable to fractals/raids, everyone would do just that. Path of least resistance. It doesn't matter if I enjoy raiding more, there'd be noone to raid with. See dungeon LFGs and imagine you needed to fill 10-man group for a dungeon run.

A single kill of a world boss obviously cannot be comparable reward-wise to a single raid boss kill. This doesn't mean that the activity as a whole cannot. Legendary weapons (gen2, and gen1 obtained through the precursor crafting collections) show that even open world content _can_ offer substantial rewards without making it trivial. It's by no means "free". Not even close.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > And some consider it a good thing.

>

> However, that's not a matter of opinion. It's a game design fact. Exclusive rewards are inherently better.

Actually, it _is_ very much a matter of opinion. Exclusive rewards can be better, but they can also be far worse. It's all highly situational, and depends on many factors, not all of which can be controlled by devs.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> They give better motivation, which leads to greater satisfaction. You make players play more, and they are happier about it.

For some. Others see exclusive rewards they want being obtainable behind content they don't want to (or cannot) associate with, which _decreases_ their interest and makes them _less_ happy.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Raid armor is not based on the content. It's merely locked behind it. That's a world of difference.

> Oh really? Do explain that world of difference, please. :)

>

If you want an example of rewards tied to the content, look at dungeon skins. Many of the raid skins actually also belong to that category (it's clear that you get dhuum scythe by killing dhuum, for example). Raid armor however is not like that. It is tied to raids by a purely arbitrary decision. It's not even raid-themed (neither in look, nor in name - because, seriously, _Envoy_? For the white mantle/mursaat themed raid encounters?). If it was originally put behind any other content, nobody would even notice that it was in any way associated with raids. And that's just when we consider the skin alone, which obviously is not all that the raid armor is.

What it also is is the only legendary PvE armor (with the chances of Anet ever making another being close to nil). Being locked behind a niche content.

 

That's not how exclusives should work.

 

If the raid armor was a raid-themed ascended set, the conflict it generates would likely be small enough to be barely noticeable.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> If you want an example of rewards tied to the content, look at dungeon skins. Many of the raid skins actually also belong to that category (it's clear that you get dhuum scythe by killing dhuum, for example). Raid armor however is not like that. It is tied to raids by a purely arbitrary decision.

 

Oh? And what does The Ascension have to do with PvP? What are the thematic ties making Aurora bound to LS3 and Luminescent armor to Silverwastes? Why do you need Shards of Zhaitan to craft Bifrost? There are plenty of arbitrary locks. However, you're only fixated on one of these, and you've been fixated on it for months.

 

By the way, I wouldn't mind if the armor was somehow White Mantle related for instance. Thematic reasons aren't lost on me. But the fact is, doing the journey is what mattered. Taking my first steps, making gradual progress, improving over time, changing from failure, through struggle, to mastery. In the end, I didn't and don't really care what the armor design was. I even have it transmuted right now. But I care what it means. I care for its story, because it's my own. That's far and away more important than being "arbitrary" locked. Sure, it might be arbitrary. But without this locking, the story wouldn't exist.