Ohoni.6057 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > We're talking about raids here, the rest of the game is irrelevant to the discussion. > > No it's not. You have access to 99.9% of the food options so you can certainly go eat those. No reason to starve here. Again, *we are not talking about those here,* we are talking about raids. We are talking about getting access to easier *raids,* not to completely different types of content. > > That's not balanced, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "balance," that's just "broadly distributed." > > No that's actually balanced and the most proper way of balancing the rewards in the first place. Again, no, it has nothing to do with balance. It isn't "balance" just because you say it is, words have actual meanings. Putting a bowling ball over here, a softball over there, a dodgeball over there, and a golfball over there does not mean that each of those places is "balanced" just because each gets their own ball. > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is solving the problem perfectely. > > > > > > > > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation. > > > > > > Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing. > > > > In case you weren't following, we were making a food analogy. Everything is relative. Nobody was comparing anything to literal human starving in terms of scale. > > > > > > Either pick better analogies or know when to drop them. You ended up saying something that both does not apply to the discussed matter, and is in extremely poor taste. I hope you see this cannot possibly further your agenda. . . . *You* were the one that tried to stretch it too far. I told you that you were being silly for doing so. I have no control over how far *you* choose to stretch my analogies. > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices. > > > > > > > > > > No that's not better at all. And balancing the rewards is actually the primary concern. I'm just glad you are not in charge of balancing any video game. > > > > If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate. Balancing rewards is just a small part of what makes a game fun and interesting, and while it's certainly important, it's also WELL behind a great many other factors. I feel that philosophies like yours are what led to things like the game's economy, where it seems to be designed only to serve itself, to be a "balanced economy," rather than first being designed to actually serve the needs of the players, by providing affordable materials as needed, and providing a reasonable place to earn income based on unwanted loot. > > > > We'll the economy you're describing is a balanced one. > Yes, and again, whether its balanced or not should always be secondary to how well it serves its actual function, to improve player's experiences. The economy should serve the players, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > Again, *we are not talking about those here,* we are talking about raids. We are talking about getting access to easier *raids,* not to completely different types of content. > Raids aren't the only content in the game. And you are talking about creating a completely different type of content calling it "easy mode" Raids. So again, you are wrong. > Again, no, it has nothing to do with balance. It isn't "balance" just because you say it is, words have actual meanings. Putting a bowling ball over here, a softball over there, a dodgeball over there, and a golfball over there does not mean that each of those places is "balanced" just because each gets their own ball. Again yes, that's what balance of rewards actually is you don't knowing the meaning of the word is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > We're talking about raids here, the rest of the game is irrelevant to the discussion. > > > > No it's not. You have access to 99.9% of the food options so you can certainly go eat those. No reason to starve here. > > Again, *we are not talking about those here,* we are talking about raids. We are talking about getting access to easier *raids,* not to completely different types of content. > > > > That's not balanced, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "balance," that's just "broadly distributed." > > > > No that's actually balanced and the most proper way of balancing the rewards in the first place. > > Again, no, it has nothing to do with balance. It isn't "balance" just because you say it is, words have actual meanings. Putting a bowling ball over here, a softball over there, a dodgeball over there, and a golfball over there does not mean that each of those places is "balanced" just because each gets their own ball. > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is solving the problem perfectely. > > > > > > > > > > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation. > > > > > > > > Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing. > > > > > > In case you weren't following, we were making a food analogy. Everything is relative. Nobody was comparing anything to literal human starving in terms of scale. > > > > > > > > > > Either pick better analogies or know when to drop them. You ended up saying something that both does not apply to the discussed matter, and is in extremely poor taste. I hope you see this cannot possibly further your agenda. > > . . . > > *You* were the one that tried to stretch it too far. I told you that you were being silly for doing so. I have no control over how far *you* choose to stretch my analogies. > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > > But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No that's not better at all. And balancing the rewards is actually the primary concern. I'm just glad you are not in charge of balancing any video game. > > > > > > If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate. Balancing rewards is just a small part of what makes a game fun and interesting, and while it's certainly important, it's also WELL behind a great many other factors. I feel that philosophies like yours are what led to things like the game's economy, where it seems to be designed only to serve itself, to be a "balanced economy," rather than first being designed to actually serve the needs of the players, by providing affordable materials as needed, and providing a reasonable place to earn income based on unwanted loot. > > > > > > > We'll the economy you're describing is a balanced one. > > > > Yes, and again, whether its balanced or not should always be secondary to how well it serves its actual function, to improve player's experiences. The economy should serve the players, not the other way around. > > Sorry if my response wasn't clear. You're saying the economy can be balanced but not serving its function in either providing money or materials. This would mean it is actually unbalanced. So i'm wondering why you're making a statement it can be balanced while beeing unbalanced. This seems like a weird statement to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is solving the problem perfectely. > > > > > > > > > > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation. > > > > > > > > Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing. > > > > > > In case you weren't following, we were making a food analogy. Everything is relative. Nobody was comparing anything to literal human starving in terms of scale. > > > > > > > > > > Either pick better analogies or know when to drop them. You ended up saying something that both does not apply to the discussed matter, and is in extremely poor taste. I hope you see this cannot possibly further your agenda. > > . . . > > *You* were the one that tried to stretch it too far. I told you that you were being silly for doing so. I have no control over how far *you* choose to stretch my analogies. > If we assume I stretched it too far, then it didn't work for you. If it did work for you, then you stretched it too far. In either case, it was wrong of you to use it, albeit for different reasons. > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > Yes, and again, whether its balanced or not should always be secondary to how well it serves its actual function, to improve player's experiences. The economy should serve the players, not the other way around. > > How do you imagine that, in contrast to the way it currently works? I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > Again yes, that's what balance of rewards actually is you don't knowing the meaning of the word is irrelevant. "Balance of rewards" means that the rewards from each content zone are "in balance," as in they would never play a factor in your choice of activities, because one would be equally as good as another, and you'd just end up doing the activity that appeals to you most. That has absolutely nothing to do with having unique rewards, because unique rewards are too subjective to balance appropriately. If Content A has a reward that a player really wants, and Content B has a reward he has no interest in, but he would really enjoy playing Content B, then you could not in any plauisble universe make a case that these rewards are in any way, shape, or form, "in balance" with each other. You can aruge that you *like* that sort of system, you just can't apply the term "balance" to that scenario, because that word has a meaning, and that meaning is not that. > @"yann.1946" said: > Sorry if my response wasn't clear. You're saying the economy can be balanced but not serving its function in either providing money or materials. Yes, or at least that it would not be serving it to the best of its possibility. > This would mean it is actually unbalanced. Not necessarily. An economy that is stable and non-inflationary would be in balance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it properly serves its function of inputting and outputting the resources in a way that best serves the players. If, for example, a given material had a relatively stable market price, and yet that price was higher than would be worth spending for most of the functions that material serves, then it would be in balance by virtue of its stability, but would not be best serving the players because players that wanted to use that material could not find it at an affordable price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > > @"yann.1946" said: > > Sorry if my response wasn't clear. You're saying the economy can be balanced but not serving its function in either providing money or materials. > > Yes, or at least that it would not be serving it to the best of its possibility. > > > This would mean it is actually unbalanced. > > Not necessarily. An economy that is stable and non-inflationary would be in balance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it properly serves its function of inputting and outputting the resources in a way that best serves the players. If, for example, a given material had a relatively stable market price, and yet that price was higher than would be worth spending for most of the functions that material serves, then it would be in balance by virtue of its stability, but would not be best serving the players because players that wanted to use that material could not find it at an affordable price. But in the economies case the price of a material works both ways. An item is affordable if the economy is balanced because you could sell similar materials for the roughly the same price. I'm not saying our economy is balanced just that a balanced economy would serve in the players best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > Again yes, that's what balance of rewards actually is you don't knowing the meaning of the word is irrelevant. > > "Balance of rewards" means that the rewards from each content zone are "in balance" Your kind of balance doesn't exist and that's because having activities that are "equally good" at getting the same reward is not possible to create in a game. That's because the ways to get a reward are subjective and cannot be balanced appropriately. Let's take Flame Legion Charr Carvings as an example, they can be acquired by a variety of content, including PVP reward tracks and running the dungeon Citadel of Flame. For the sake of argument let's compare getting the tokens from the PVP reward and track versus getting them from running Path 1 of the dungeon. If the rewards between those two content types were to be called "Balanced" by how you called it, then running either would net you the same amount of rewards for a similar invested time/effort. Effort is impossible to quantify so let's say time, tokens/minute are what could be balanced, but even that is impossible and that's because rewards aren't acquired after certain time passes. Your skill, the skill of your team mates, and of course other factors, like your PVP rank and your luck, dictate how many tokens you will get, in both cases. A good team will get the tokens much faster than a terrible team, therefore there is no way to balance them according to the time required to get them either. What you are asking and what you want to have is simply impossible. Now if there was a way to trade Flame Legion Charr Carvings for Ascalonian Tears, your idea of perfect balance I guess, it would certainly over-complicate things even further. Even liquid rewards, like gold and karma can't be effectively balanced in different types of content for the average player. However, they can be changed based on their effect on the entire economy. AB ML wouldn't get any kind of change if it was being run by 50 people regardless of how much gold and other rewards it gave out compared to the rest of the game. That can be tweaked to give more or less income, but that's a single currency (gold) that needs to be considered here. Expecting to tweak every single currency with each other is an exercise in frustration, and wasted developer resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > Again yes, that's what balance of rewards actually is you don't knowing the meaning of the word is irrelevant. > > "Balance of rewards" means that the rewards from each content zone are "in balance," as in they would never play a factor in your choice of activities, because one would be equally as good as another, and you'd just end up doing the activity that appeals to you most. That's *horrible* design. The reason? It makes the game boring. You think appeal is something constant? It isn't. Repeating something over and over ceases to be fun and rewards are a primary drive to keep going. By allowing all rewards to be collected from any activity, you're giving your players a **strong** incentive to pick a single grind and stick to it. They'll become more efficient in it, they'll know the ropes, why would they change? So while you're *attempting* to give your players the freedom of choice, you *actually* condemn them to a grindy experience they'll grow bored of in a fraction of the time your game could otherwise entertain you. Did I tell you how player suggestions most often mean well, but are misdirected? Thanks for making my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thobek.1730 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Thobek.1730" said: > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) It's mostly the same 5-10 people arguing over 20+ pages so I wouldn't say that the threads being big signifies something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephylon.4938 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Thobek.1730" said: > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. To add to maddoctor's point: some of those that want easy mode want it to include the legendary armor and all drops you get in normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Thobek.1730" said: > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. This is it. As long as the rewards are less. But I have seen many people here claiming that the easy mode should give the same ending reward -the Envoy armor. Aside from that, I don't think that an easy mode is necessary. Raids already have easy bosses, raids are completely doable, if a player is not willing to do an effort to raid it's not Anet's fault or responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Thobek.1730" said: > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. Well if easy mode give 2 blues, 1 green and 1 rare weekly there is no problem mate. Thats a minor low tier reward, most people in this thread dont want that tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"Thobek.1730" said: > > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. > > Well if easy mode give 2 blues, 1 green and 1 rare weekly there is no problem mate. > Thats a minor low tier reward, most people in this thread dont want that tho. you can farm legendaries by simply playing wvw and pvp casually, same would apply here ofc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > @"Thobek.1730" said: > > > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > > > > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > > > > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. > > > > Well if easy mode give 2 blues, 1 green and 1 rare weekly there is no problem mate. > > Thats a minor low tier reward, most people in this thread dont want that tho. > > you can farm legendaries by simply playing wvw and pvp casually, same would apply here ofc. Come on, it's technically true but in reality it's not. WvW require rank 2000 and that's a LOT of WvW, you can't just play casually WvW and get the armor unless you don't mind needing a couple of years to reach the rank. And the pvp legendary armor needs a LOT of ascended shards, just farming is too time consuming. You have to win if you do not want to die waiting to get all the shards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"nia.4725" said: > WvW require rank 2000 and that's a LOT of WvW, you can't just play casually WvW and get the armor unless you don't mind needing a couple of years to reach the rank. Legendary armor doesn't require that high rank. Only sublime armor (which is _ascended_, by the way) requires it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"nia.4725" said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > > @"Thobek.1730" said: > > > > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > > > > > > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > > > > > > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. > > > > > > Well if easy mode give 2 blues, 1 green and 1 rare weekly there is no problem mate. > > > Thats a minor low tier reward, most people in this thread dont want that tho. > > > > you can farm legendaries by simply playing wvw and pvp casually, same would apply here ofc. > > Come on, it's technically true but in reality it's not. > > WvW require rank 2000 and that's a LOT of WvW, you can't just play casually WvW and get the armor unless you don't mind needing a couple of years to reach the rank. > > And the pvp legendary armor needs a LOT of ascended shards, just farming is too time consuming. You have to win if you do not want to die waiting to get all the shards. Nope. The 2k rank armor (T3 skin) is an ascended skin, which can be upgraded to legendary. The T2 skin can also be upgraded to legendary. No rank requirement for wvw legendary armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"nia.4725" said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > > @"Thobek.1730" said: > > > > The biggest threads in this forums are either easy raids for causals that what to experience raiding and an easier/better way to organize a raid (lfg, autofill) > > > > > > > > I'd say there is a strong interest in this no matter what the people opposing this say. > > > > > > > > Not sure what the argument is against an easy mode as long as the rewards are less that what the tougher modes are. Easy modes in most MMOs are just there for people to see the content basically with minor lower tier rewards. Can't see how it would effect anyone raiding atm, instead it would just allow more people to become interested in raiding. > > > > > > Well if easy mode give 2 blues, 1 green and 1 rare weekly there is no problem mate. > > > Thats a minor low tier reward, most people in this thread dont want that tho. > > > > you can farm legendaries by simply playing wvw and pvp casually, same would apply here ofc. > > Come on, it's technically true but in reality it's not. > > WvW require rank 2000 and that's a LOT of WvW, you can't just play casually WvW and get the armor unless you don't mind needing a couple of years to reach the rank. > > And the pvp legendary armor needs a LOT of ascended shards, just farming is too time consuming. You have to win if you do not want to die waiting to get all the shards. nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. > > actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, Yeah, but nearly 1 year of doing that and I still don't have enough for a *single* set. Casual? Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > > > > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. > > > > actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, > > Yeah, but nearly 1 year of doing that and I still don't have enough for a *single* set. Casual? Yeah, right. yep that's casual (im doing that very grind myself) the factor is time, casual players are not in a rush to get stuff, but long term goals are there. Same deal applies for easy mode raids, casual content needing long term satisfying goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. > > actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, Yes that's what I said, that's why WVW rewards aren't as good as they could be. Once they figure out a way to reward actual skill maybe more/better rewards will reach that part of the game. They did it with the Ascension in PVP, instead of using the flawed PVP reward tracks, getting the Ascension required some great deal of actual PVP to get. It's really sad to go into player versus player content and get all the rewards while not actively engaging other players defeating the purpose of PVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > > > > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. > > > > actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, > > Yes that's what I said, that's why WVW rewards aren't as good as they could be. Once they figure out a way to reward actual skill maybe more/better rewards will reach that part of the game. They did it with the Ascension in PVP, instead of using the flawed PVP reward tracks, getting the Ascension required some great deal of actual PVP to get. It's really sad to go into player versus player content and get all the rewards while not actively engaging other players defeating the purpose of PVP. lol so now the inference is that easy mode raids shouldn't have legendary long term goals even though casual wvw has it, because its a mistake for casual wvw now because that validates your arguments. at this point you guys would argue the world is flat if it protected your personal interests. The reality is the wvw legendary rewards are very welcome in wvw and will not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > > > nope as per posters above you can simply farm it, what's more you can even use boosters (looks like you didn't know this, maybe you understand now). assuming it takes the casual player a year to farm legendary in wvw, then no reason why normal level raids would not be the same - anything else would obviously be unfair. > > > > > > > > I remember players complaining that WVW doesn't get enough good rewards. Maybe this is why, it's hard to reward actual effort and player skill in WVW. > > > > > > actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever. Most simply have fun doing what they want to do however, which is kinda the point, > > > > Yes that's what I said, that's why WVW rewards aren't as good as they could be. Once they figure out a way to reward actual skill maybe more/better rewards will reach that part of the game. They did it with the Ascension in PVP, instead of using the flawed PVP reward tracks, getting the Ascension required some great deal of actual PVP to get. It's really sad to go into player versus player content and get all the rewards while not actively engaging other players defeating the purpose of PVP. > > lol so now the inference is that easy mode raids shouldn't have legendary long term goals even though casual wvw has it, because its a mistake for casual wvw now because that validates your arguments. at this point you guys would argue the world is flat if it protected your personal interests. The reality is the wvw legendary rewards are very welcome in wvw and will not change. I honestly have no clue how you get Legendary Armor in WVW. I only went by your word "actually you can just follow a farm trail if you so desired and apply no skill whatsoever". I never said that adding Legendary Armor to "casual wvw" was a mistake, for the important reason that no "hardcore wvw" exist. I'm only saying IF there was a non-casual way of getting WVW rewards then Legendary Armor would fit there and not on the casual side. Now that such a way doesn't actually exist, adding Legendary Armor to WVW wasn't a mistake at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now