Asylum Destro Staff 3.2.2

Lord-Otto

@Artis

I disagree.
My Destiny 1 friends all left because they hit a brick wall for gear. Bungie realized and made D2 more generous. WoW eventually fell because it forced people to farmfarmfarm again and even take away their stuff. Datto claims he quit Witcher because he realized he couldn't 100% it.
There is so much a person can run the hamster wheel until giving up.

CONTENT keeps people. Cool game modes. Cool dungeons. Cool bosses. People cried for content in Destiny, not grind.
And ZOS realized it. You think it's coincidence they rather pump short-lived, but new, content than long-lived achievements? Nah.
Or the roots. The Elder Scrolls. You know why that series is so f*** legendary? Because there's a s***load of content in those games. More like TEN s***loads.

Yes, there are five hardcore players. And they should have their rewards. But not unique gear.
Making gear for the 1% of players is a waste of design time. It's a waste of fun that the other 99% could have. It's a waste of balancing time. The 10% that had the Mythoclast in Destiny's first Iron Banner obliterated it. Bungie had to re-design everything because of it.

No. Cosmetics are the way to go. Looking unique is very desired, make that a reward. Destiny w has emblems which track K/D or flawless wins. ESO has leaderboards and skins. That is your reward. I don't care about the dude with the sharpened VMA inferno who probably got it on the second try. But the top ten in Vivec? The people on top of VMA or vMoL leaderboard? Dro-M'Athra skin? They get my f*** respect.

code65536

Artis wrote: »

Progression includes gear progression.

It seems like we've had this argument before. But I will highlight this one quote as what I think is one of the fundamental differences. I don't think progression should include gear progression. Progression in ESO is primarily about skill and getting good. Gear progression being a part of progression is a very archaic old-school model. One that many people hate and one that, IMHO, is unhealthy for the game's longevity. ZOS has steadily pared back the amount of "gear progression" in ESO. And that's a good thing. Skill progression is what matters. And judging from the number of people in disagreement with you in this thread and in previous thread about vMA tokens, most people dislike the there being a strong element of "gear progression".

idk wrote: »

Read the response code has made on this page. After all, my agreeing with him is the only reason you are replying to me. He seems to have a solid grasp on this from a raiders perspective.

I'm his raid lead.

idk

code65536 wrote: »

Artis wrote: »

Progression includes gear progression.

It seems like we've had this argument before. But I will highlight this one quote as what I think is one of the fundamental differences. I don't think progression should include gear progression. Progression in ESO is primarily about skill and getting good. Gear progression being a part of progression is a very archaic old-school model. One that many people hate and one that, IMHO, is unhealthy for the game's longevity. ZOS has steadily pared back the amount of "gear progression" in ESO. And that's a good thing. Skill progression is what matters. And judging from the number of people in disagreement with you in this thread and in previous thread about vMA tokens, most people dislike the there being a strong element of "gear progression".

Most certainly. And ESO is not designed like the MMORPGs of yesteryear with tiered gear as the only worthy gear which is only available via the end game raids.

Heck, in ESO the same teams that clear the hardest content can do it without any gear from any of the trials just fine, in fact many of their DPS will use a set of crafted gear in the current game design.

Derra

Artis wrote: »

Yep, so then it is. If, as you said, only 0.2% players will have those weapons, and even less of those weapons will make it to PvP, then introducing a couple of them won't change the balance. Especially since there is no MMR or anything of a sort. Weapon will not change much - there are whole different builds and classes that are not balanced.

It changes balance the second someone with that weapons pvps with it.

By your argument any discussion about balance is irrelevant because it can only be seen as a whole system. So if you can´t balance everything at once you can´t microbalance obvious flaws like these weapons represent. Head => wall.

Turn it around: I go and farm a weapon to pvp with it. Welcome to me being a walking pvp balance issue. Now you have severe impact on balance in a way that a dedicated experienced pvp player is not only possibly outplaying but also outgearing opponents.
I don´t think i should get a gear advantage because i can/will put in time to get an item that´s obviously better than it´s competition (and bite the sour apple of spending dozens or hundreds of hours doing something i don´t enjoy).

It makes the game worse for everyone not having it.
And it does not make the game better for anyone (except me when i got it - ). I´ll do something i don´t like for an extended period of time. People i fight will experience something they don´t like. If they are incapable of getting the weapon after that they´ll experience something they´ll definetly not like - failure without perspective to overcome it.
That is not good for a games health.

Artis

idk wrote: »

It is about opinions. You have an opinion about the effect which is only partially right, read above, and I have an opinion. Most, if not all, that I know that raid do it because they enjoy it. The continue well after they have all the gear they need and want.

Read the response code has made on this page. After all, my agreeing with him is the only reason you are replying to me. He seems to have a solid grasp on this from a raiders perspective.

Not only I read the response but also refuted it already.

And no, it's not about an opinion. I don't have an opinion, I have studies which I linked. It's not my opinion things will go that way, it's behavioral psychology saying that things will go this way. I'm merely a medium here. Do you have anything to base your opinion on except for your feelings about how things should be?

Lord-Otto wrote: »

I disagree.
My Destiny 1 friends all left because they hit a brick wall for gear. Bungie realized and made D2 more generous. WoW eventually fell because it forced people to farmfarmfarm again and even take away their stuff. Datto claims he quit Witcher because he realized he couldn't 100% it.
There is so much a person can run the hamster wheel until giving up.

CONTENT keeps people. Cool game modes. Cool dungeons. Cool bosses. People cried for content in Destiny, not grind.
And ZOS realized it. You think it's coincidence they rather pump short-lived, but new, content than long-lived achievements? Nah.
Or the roots. The Elder Scrolls. You know why that series is so f*** legendary? Because there's a s***load of content in those games. More like TEN s***loads.


Yes, there are five hardcore players. And they should have their rewards. But not unique gear.
Making gear for the 1% of players is a waste of design time. It's a waste of fun that the other 99% could have. It's a waste of balancing time. The 10% that had the Mythoclast in Destiny's first Iron Banner obliterated it. Bungie had to re-design everything because of it.

No. Cosmetics are the way to go. Looking unique is very desired, make that a reward. Destiny w has emblems which track K/D or flawless wins. ESO has leaderboards and skins. That is your reward. I don't care about the dude with the sharpened VMA inferno who probably got it on the second try. But the top ten in Vivec? The people on top of VMA or vMoL leaderboard? Dro-M'Athra skin? They get my f*** respect.

What do you disagree with? With studies? Wow didn't fall, it's still the most popular MMORPG, a lot of people would still play it if not graphics, that's where it got old. Now your friend who quit witcher is just one example, I'm talking about the tendencies and majorities, and trying to understand what's better for the game, not for you or me.

Content keeps people, but not only. If you get rewarded for everything and get everything fast, you will just leave to try other things. It's a combination of factors, not just content. Now regarding elder scrolls, do you have a proof of your words? Because I for one don't think it has a lot of content. What's cool there is exploration and the best graphics at the time of release + an illusion that the world is alive and we can change it. Do you have any studies suggesting what you're saying to link?

If there are only five hardcore players, then balancing is not a problem, so there was no waste. Looking unique is desired but not just that. Being stronger than before is desired. That's why leveling and getting stronger, that's one of progressions people like. Looking unique is over-rated. I wasn't using my vmol skin, for example, I hated it. That's all subjective. So what, should I have no reward for completing it then? I want something objectively useful, which can only be BiS gear (out of gear available for content for this difficulty and below). Higher difficulty should reward me by unlocking cool gear I can't unlock otherwise. It's not just about what you see, it's also about what I see and feel like rewarding, right? And you should agree that not everyone likes skins and not everyone maintains their leader board position after reset, so does it mean they should have nothing for their effort?

code65536 wrote: »

It seems like we've had this argument before. But I will highlight this one quote as what I think is one of the fundamental differences. I don't think progression should include gear progression. Progression in ESO is primarily about skill and getting good. Gear progression being a part of progression is a very archaic old-school model. One that many people hate and one that, IMHO, is unhealthy for the game's longevity. ZOS has steadily pared back the amount of "gear progression" in ESO. And that's a good thing. Skill progression is what matters. And judging from the number of people in disagreement with you in this thread and in previous thread about vMA tokens, most people dislike the there being a strong element of "gear progression".

Mm, with that I disagree. Wow has that system and no one can really compete with it in longevity. In vMA thread there were like 3 people disagreeing, and in this thread there's about as many, while some agree with me. In fact, I even get agrees and all. And it's not "most people". It would be most people in this thread, while most people who agree with me probably didn't even open this thread, so that's not an indicator of anything. Moreover, they can disagree with me all they want. There are studies suggesting what I'm saying. And there's wow, showing that it works in practice. Even with their outdated graphics and combat system.


Except for your opinion on how things should be, do you base your argument on anything? Cause I understand what you're saying and agree with a lot of it myself, but it's not about me or you. I can easily accept that I might be an outlier and the majority thinks differently.

code65536 wrote: »

I'm his raid lead.

That's not me, that's my namesake.

Derra wrote: »

It changes balance the second someone with that weapons pvps with it.

By your argument any discussion about balance is irrelevant because it can only be seen as a whole system. So if you can´t balance everything at once you can´t microbalance obvious flaws like these weapons represent. Head => wall.

Turn it around: I go and farm a weapon to pvp with it. Welcome to me being a walking pvp balance issue. Now you have severe impact on balance in a way that a dedicated experienced pvp player is not only possibly outplaying but also outgearing opponents.
I don´t think i should get a gear advantage because i can/will put in time to get an item that´s obviously better than it´s competition (and bite the sour apple of spending dozens or hundreds of hours doing something i don´t enjoy).

It makes the game worse for everyone not having it.
And it does not make the game better for anyone (except me when i got it - ). I´ll do something i don´t like for an extended period of time. People i fight will experience something they don´t like. If they are incapable of getting the weapon after that they´ll experience something they´ll definetly not like - failure without perspective to overcome it.
That is not good for a games health.

No it doesn't. Firstly - because it's only 0.2% people, that's below any reasonable threshold and is a statistical outlier, most people will play without every meeting those 0.2%. Secondly, because everyone has access to it. It's nowhere near actual imbalance. If stamblades are overpowered, for example, - now that's imbalance, because I can't turn my character into a stamblade. Weapons? If someone got this weapon and I want to compete with them, all I need to do is go get the same weapon. Moreover, using it means you won't use monster set+ 2 5pc bonuses. So it's a trade off.

You aren't a walking balance issue. You are just one person. PvP is NOT balanced or designed for 1v1. Cyrodil is mostly massive fights where your single target spell won't make much difference. Also, you get skill advantage for putting time into pvp. If you like pvp, then you like fair fights, don't you? So why wouldn't you want me to have that weapon if I put so much time into pve? That way I would have a fighting change IF I even find time to go pvp. According to you it takes so much time, that you cant' really do both, right?

People you fight will still experience something they don't like. On the other hand, people who run with you will experience what they like. Including people who had you to run the trial with to farm that weapon to begin with.

Also you didn't answer - what about other things people don't find fun? What about attack-weaving? Isn't it imbalanced too the moment someone is using it while others don't find it fun?

Which btw raises a more general question. Do we need gear at all then? If we want everybody to have everything and be equally powerful, why do we need gear(can be extended to races, classes)?

Maulkin

[snip] me, if I wanted to read articles I'd open a newspaper. Where's the TL;DR; when you need it?

[Edit to remove censor bypass.]

Derra

Maulkin wrote: »

[snip] me, if I wanted to read articles I'd open a newspaper. Where's the TL;DR; when you need it?

[Edit to remove censor bypass.]

You´ll probably get a stroke reading it.
Or atleast develop the strong desire to attempt licking your own tail - because that´s pretty much the spirit of the post.

Especialyl when he repeats his logical fallacy that pve people are automatically bad at pvp and therefor need the weapon to compensate.
Which ironically implies that the weapon will have an effect on pvp balance as it would provide a poor inexperienced pve player with means to fight back.
Directly contradicting his own statement he made one paragraph before - that the weapon came as a tradeoff (thus no advantage) or could just be aquired by anyone (just in case it should provide and advantage - he´s undecided whether it does or not - not exactly helping his point).
With the statement of it being aquireable by anyone being another contradiction of himself as he´s adamantly defending the weapon as a reward for the elite pve raiders no mortal should get their hands on - which rules out the possiblity of anyone aquiring it.

But the good thing is - if we´re going by his argument of statistical relevance than the weapons have to be made more accessible because the portion of the playerbase that can aquire them is probably statistically irrelevant - which obviously isn´t in the buisnessinterest of zos.

Artis

Derra wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

[snip] me, if I wanted to read articles I'd open a newspaper. Where's the TL;DR; when you need it?

[Edit to remove censor bypass.]

You´ll probably get a stroke reading it.
Or atleast develop the strong desire to attempt licking your own tail - because that´s pretty much the spirit of the post.

Especialyl when he repeats his logical fallacy that pve people are automatically bad at pvp and therefor need the weapon to compensate.
Which ironically implies that the weapon will have an effect on pvp balance as it would provide a poor inexperienced pve player with means to fight back.
Directly contradicting his own statement he made one paragraph before - that the weapon came as a tradeoff (thus no advantage) or could just be aquired by anyone (just in case it should provide and advantage - he´s undecided whether it does or not - not exactly helping his point).
With the statement of it being aquireable by anyone being another contradiction of himself as he´s adamantly defending the weapon as a reward for the elite pve raiders no mortal should get their hands on - which rules out the possiblity of anyone aquiring it.

But the good thing is - if we´re going by his argument of statistical relevance than the weapons have to be made more accessible because the portion of the playerbase that can aquire them is probably statistically irrelevant - which obviously isn´t in the buisnessinterest of zos.

What you're doing is not only a bad debate practice, but is simply rude . Don't put words in my mouth. Don't accuse me of what I never said.

I'm not repeating any logical fallacies, I'm taking you up on your word. You said it earlier, that pve raiding takes so much time that one can't do both. Or was it somebody else? Doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that it won't affect the balance because of how few people (again - according to you) will have it. Making someone stronger doesn't mean it will affect the balance in the big picture.

There is no contradiction, because those others things were simply describing the situation using your assumptions. ON TOP of that it's a trade off, so it's microbalanced relative to other options. Wanna use it? Won't be able to have WR+transmutation, for example.

Yes, the good things is that there are studies and statistics, some of which I linked. And they agree with me. Also, now you are contradicting yourself. If the amount of people is statistically irrelevant, then the balance is not affected.

Also, you still didn't reply to other questions, including attack-weaving. Should it be removed because it's not fun for some? Or your "needed to compete" argument is gone and you take it back?

idk

nvm

Derra

Artis wrote: »

What you're doing is not only a bad debate practice, but is simply rude . Don't put words in my mouth. Don't accuse me of what I never said.

I'm not repeating any logical fallacies, I'm taking you up on your word. You said it earlier, that pve raiding takes so much time that one can't do both. Or was it somebody else? Doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that it won't affect the balance because of how few people (again - according to you) will have it. Making someone stronger doesn't mean it will affect the balance in the big picture.

There is no contradiction, because those others things were simply describing the situation using your assumptions. ON TOP of that it's a trade off, so it's microbalanced relative to other options. Wanna use it? Won't be able to have WR+transmutation, for example.

Yes, the good things is that there are studies and statistics, some of which I linked. And they agree with me. Also, now you are contradicting yourself. If the amount of people is statistically irrelevant, then the balance is not affected.

Also, you still didn't reply to other questions, including attack-weaving. Should it be removed because it's not fun for some? Or your "needed to compete" argument is gone and you take it back?

Wow you managed to adress none of the points i´ve brought up.

It´s coming of rude because you´re conviniently changing your argument with every paragraph. There is no consitency to what you say except for wanting to preserver your elitist advantage. Which makes discussion kinda moot.
Furthermore you bring things into the discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussed topic trying to correlate the general train of thought to your argument. Again bad debate practice.
Then you admit to overgeneralizing the point made earlier that pvp and pve can be hard for some/maybe most players to combine when it´s an activity as timeconsuming as hm raiding (so in your world suddenly only pve OR pvp exist).
Then you bring in arbitrary set situations that are absolutely irrelevant - WR + transmu + monster. One of the most popular sorc setup rn is maelstrom + 5amber/shackle + 5riposte/lich backbar + 1 domi. Go figure what place your weapon has in that for many considered BIS sorc setup.

Last but not least you keep repeating that balance only matters in the big picture - which is absolutely false. Why are there so many changes being made on pve sets/mundus stones when they only show a 1 to 2% advantage in a theoretical perfect rotation that´ll never translate to practice. Shouldn´t that be irrelevant aswell? On top of that just everybody could use most of those as compared to what we´re talking about those are easy to aquire (bsw inferno/swords like to have a talk with some people how easy they are to get).
The answer is probably no. Balancing is most relevant for the top 5% because those are the situations where previously irrelevant and small statistical advantages begin to matter.

Also grats at bringing up ominous studies and statistics to reinforce the nonexistant point you´re trying to make - without citing anything.

Best have a chat with your raidlead on the topic. He/She seems to be capable of giving the topic a more holistic view instead only being capable to argue from a position of power aka: "i can have means i should have and if you can´t you shouldn´t"
On top of that he knows you better than a few forum posts so might be more inclined to tolerate that repelling elitism you show in every one of your posts.
At this point i can only wish you best of luck and hope you either mature out of that state of mind or if that´s not an option atleast never get into a situation where you can´t and someone else is telling you that you shouldn´t in that case

kojou

All I wanted to know was if people agreed (or disagreed) that the Non-Perfect Asylum staff was over-nerfed...

To summarize:

- Artis thinks that the its OK to have the Perfect staff gated behind Hard Mode and the Leaderboard and functional in PvP, because it incentivizes players to do Hard Mode.

- code65536 and IDK would like to see the perfect staff dropped in Non-HM Veteran and think Hard Mode should be about title and prestige.

- Derra just doesn't want the staff to be functional in PvP to prevent elite players from causing balance issues and forcing PvP players to do PvE against their will (to get BiS equipment).

There are a lot of interesting supporting arguments, and hopefully ZoS did an analysis of our raiding habits and made a educated guess based on statistics to decide which staff drops where. We can probably debate it endlessly on our end, but in the end they always do what they want to do in these cases...

I would love to be in code65536's raid group and work towards a perfect staff, but I doubt I even have the time or the skill level to replace any of the players in it, but there should still be incentives for us Semi-casual-working-stiffs-with-families players (that like challenges) to have raid groups as well. When I finally do get in a raid group that completes the trial on vet mode I don't want to get a trash drop as a reward.

In my humble opinion, it is ok to have trash drops in open world PvE and in 4 man dungeons, but in 12 man veteran raids I think the gear that drops in both Vet and HM should be compelling. It takes time, effort, and 12 willing players to complete this stuff and there needs to be multiple incentives to get us in there.

luen79rwb17_ESO

Non perfect Asylum destro needs to be buffed. Otherwise I'm not gonna invest time on this new trial for a subpar weapon.

Artis

Derra wrote: »

Wow you managed to adress none of the points i´ve brought up.

It´s coming of rude because you´re conviniently changing your argument with every paragraph. There is no consitency to what you say except for wanting to preserver your elitist advantage. Which makes discussion kinda moot.
Furthermore you bring things into the discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussed topic trying to correlate the general train of thought to your argument. Again bad debate practice.
Then you admit to overgeneralizing the point made earlier that pvp and pve can be hard for some/maybe most players to combine when it´s an activity as timeconsuming as hm raiding (so in your world suddenly only pve OR pvp exist).
Then you bring in arbitrary set situations that are absolutely irrelevant - WR + transmu + monster. One of the most popular sorc setup rn is maelstrom + 5amber/shackle + 5riposte/lich backbar + 1 domi. Go figure what place your weapon has in that for many considered BIS sorc setup.

Last but not least you keep repeating that balance only matters in the big picture - which is absolutely false. Why are there so many changes being made on pve sets/mundus stones when they only show a 1 to 2% advantage in a theoretical perfect rotation that´ll never translate to practice. Shouldn´t that be irrelevant aswell? On top of that just everybody could use most of those as compared to what we´re talking about those are easy to aquire (bsw inferno/swords like to have a talk with some people how easy they are to get).
The answer is probably no. Balancing is most relevant for the top 5% because those are the situations where previously irrelevant and small statistical advantages begin to matter.

Also grats at bringing up ominous studies and statistics to reinforce the nonexistant point you´re trying to make - without citing anything.

Best have a chat with your raidlead on the topic. He/She seems to be capable of giving the topic a more holistic view instead only being capable to argue from a position of power aka: "i can have means i should have and if you can´t you shouldn´t"
On top of that he knows you better than a few forum posts so might be more inclined to tolerate that repelling elitism you show in every one of your posts.
At this point i can only wish you best of luck and hope you either mature out of that state of mind or if that´s not an option atleast never get into a situation where you can´t and someone else is telling you that you shouldn´t in that case

You aren't the one to tell that to anyone. You still didn't address some of my points I had to repeat multiple times.

Nope, not overgeneralizing let alone admitting anything along the lines. Using your assumptions for a good old reductio ad absurdum. That's not a bad practice, pretty good actually. Regarding sorcs, the game shouldn't be balanced around them. They are already overperforming according to the majority of people.

How is that absolutely false? It's not, because small numbers are negligibly small. Don't see your arguments, only claims. Many changes are because the difference is not 1-2% in imperfect rotations + those setups are nowhere equally popular => in fact zos see that they didn't provide options.

Huh? Without citing what? I cited 2 works showing my point. My argument is based on behavioral psychology. Is your argument based on anything except for how you feel things should be? Which is the same question I'm waiting for my raidlead to answer.

And see, you still didn't reply. What about attack weaving? It's needed to compete. But some people don't find it fun. Should we lock good performance behind something some people don't want to do? Because if your answer is no, then you are pretty hypocrite and are contradicting your own line - you want to preserve your elitist advantage - the very thing you accuse me of.

Supporting not rewarding high effort with anything useful (which I will objectively have to use, so go away with skins and titles one might or might not like) and supporting hand outs to artificially force people to be equal is going full leftist. Never go full leftist.

Scenario: your co-worker works 3 nights a week 3 hours each, you work 20 hours. The boss though pays you the same rate and you compete for the same positions/promotions and the hours/experience aren't taken into account, so putting in effort doesn't give you anything that helps you to keep moving up the career ladder over a person who puts no effort. However, to "reward' your boss will give you golden stars (not really golden, made of yellow foil or something) and put your photo on the wall saying "employee of the month". That's a terrible situation you wouldn't want to be in, but I might be wrong of course.

idk wrote: »

nvm

So, not based on anything, just pulling it out of the rear end.

idk

I understand you seem to like how some older games have gear and raiding organized. It's your right to have that oppinion.

However, Zos has a different system and there is no gear locked behind a HM that cannot be acquired via regular vet.

At that, I cannot think of anyone I know, in game who raids for gear alone. That includes players who are only able to clear normal to players who only have interest in clearly vet HM. They all continue raiding after they have all the gear the desire. They enjoy raiding with their groups and through the content.

Also, based on your own raid leader it seems your an avid raider. Regardless of what level you raid at it seems you raid because you enjoy the content, raiding with a group and have a desire to improve on clearly the content regardless of the gear.

If that is correct then you raid because you like it and it demonstrates how the gear is obtained does not influence your interest in raiding, or that if your name sake.

Beyond that I think we all have expressed our oppositions and thoughts on the matter and think it's time to just respect any differences of oppinion and move on.

Artis

idk wrote: »

I understand you seem to like how some older games have gear and raiding organized. It's your right to have that oppinion.

However, Zos has a different system and there is no gear locked behind a HM that cannot be acquired via regular vet.

At that, I cannot think of anyone I know, in game who raids for gear alone. That includes players who are only able to clear normal to players who only have interest in clearly vet HM. They all continue raiding after they have all the gear the desire. They enjoy raiding with their groups and through the content.

Also, based on your own raid leader it seems your an avid raider. Regardless of what level you raid at it seems you raid because you enjoy the content, raiding with a group and have a desire to improve on clearly the content regardless of the gear.

If that is correct then you raid because you like it and it demonstrates how the gear is obtained does not influence your interest in raiding, or that if your name sake.

Eh no, there is gear locked behind a HM starting next update, hence - this thread and tears.

It's possible you don't know anyone who raids for gear alone. I'm not saying I do. What keeps people in the game is a combination of factors, one of them is being rewarded more than somebody else if you put more effort than somebody else. Being rewarded with something useful that is.

Well, it's not about me. If it was about me, then go ahead and send those weapons in mail or add a drop chance via crafting writs. As far as I know myself, I would still play. But behavioral psychology seems to show something else. Who knows? Maybe if I got everything I want easily I would lose interest, too, maybe cause then those rewards wouldn't feel valuable?

Understand, that it's not about me. I thought maximizing the amount of players over saving a few old players is better for the game. And if that's what zos wants, then maybe that's what they should do. I for one would benefit from having more players in game, even if I don't compete at all and won't even go to that raid and get that weapon.

Can you tell me why shouldn't people be rewarded for putting more effort? For the sake of making competition less deep?

idk

Artis wrote: »

idk wrote: »

I understand you seem to like how some older games have gear and raiding organized. It's your right to have that oppinion.

However, Zos has a different system and there is no gear locked behind a HM that cannot be acquired via regular vet.

At that, I cannot think of anyone I know, in game who raids for gear alone. That includes players who are only able to clear normal to players who only have interest in clearly vet HM. They all continue raiding after they have all the gear the desire. They enjoy raiding with their groups and through the content.

Also, based on your own raid leader it seems your an avid raider. Regardless of what level you raid at it seems you raid because you enjoy the content, raiding with a group and have a desire to improve on clearly the content regardless of the gear.

If that is correct then you raid because you like it and it demonstrates how the gear is obtained does not influence your interest in raiding, or that if your name sake.

Eh no, there is gear locked behind a HM starting next update, hence - this thread and tears.

It's possible you don't know anyone who raids for gear alone. I'm not saying I do. What keeps people in the game is a combination of factors, one of them is being rewarded more than somebody else if you put more effort than somebody else. Being rewarded with something useful that is.

Well, it's not about me. If it was about me, then go ahead and send those weapons in mail or add a drop chance via crafting writs. As far as I know myself, I would still play. But behavioral psychology seems to show something else. Who knows? Maybe if I got everything I want easily I would lose interest, too, maybe cause then those rewards wouldn't feel valuable?

Understand, that it's not about me. I thought maximizing the amount of players over saving a few old players is better for the game. And if that's what zos wants, then maybe that's what they should do. I for one would benefit from having more players in game, even if I don't compete at all and won't even go to that raid and get that weapon.

Can you tell me why shouldn't people be rewarded for putting more effort? For the sake of making competition less deep?

lol. Duh. What a silly Comment about the new weapon being locked behind HM. It's pretty obvious that's why this discussion exists.

Also, you proved the point that locking gear behind content doesn't really keep players around. If they are going for gear once they get it they move on. It's the quality of the content and the interest in players actually wanting to raid that drIves it's success. Even WoW understands that.

Zos doesn't lock gear behind HM and only the quality level (blue vs purple) differentiate normal from vet so it doesn't make sense to change that now and adopt an antiquated system from the dinosaurs of the industry (which is essentially what your raid leader commented on).

Since the drive for most raiders is not the gear but clearing the content and gear is secondary then locking gear behind content is not necessary. I introduce @Artis as a case to prove my point since he/she keeps raiding well after his bags are full of gear.

Thx for explaining that locking gear behind content really doesn't not benefit the game's business model in any way.

Artis

Duh, then maybe you shouldn't say they have a different system.

Yet, WoW has vertical progression where every new tier of gear is locked behind increasingly difficult content. And that's awesome. ZOS used to not lock gear, now they decided to see what changes if they do. We'll see. If more players start logging in less frequently, ZOS will see it and do necessary corrections. Or maybe, just like in WoW, it will work out great and will only keep more players. After all, it's not just grind anymore, now you will be able to change traits, so in a way you're guaranteed to get what you want, provided you can complete vet HM. So vMA excuses won't work anymore. Now the only excuse will be "I'm not good enough" or "I don't have time to be good enough" (which is the same thing in the end) to clear vet HM. Time will show if you are just a vocal (in this thread) minority or not.

I'm a bad example. First of all, I'm just one person. Studies deal with larger samples and try to explain how human brain will work in general. Secondly, I still need some gear. Who knows? Maybe if I got it I would stop caring. Thirdly, I keep raiding to be in shape until my group decides to go for certain achievements or I can add another group to my raiding schedule to get those achievements. Maybe I would've lost interest if I had nothing to work towards. Probably I would. I know I have 0 interest in Craglorn trials, because I already have gotten all the achievements there.

The last sentence is puzzling. I didn't explain any of that. In fact, I linked studies suggesting that no, making people work towards something useful WILL benefit the game. If rewards don't reflect competence, motivation to keep performing the task decreases. Not my words, it's published in a peer-reviewed source. Making rewards depend on difficulty mean rewards will reflect competence, which will increase motivation.

idk

It's probably a huge assumption that Zos is seeing what happens if they kick gear in this manner.

Considering Zos doesn't have tiered gear and their gear system doesn't open itself to the antiquated designs of the older games

At this point I will state again that all we have here is a difference of opinions, which is all either of us have brought, and leave stating it's best we merely respect our differences in opinions.

Enjoy the game.

Artis

Is it? Or is that your opinion is just biased and you assume that all players have same motivation as you and your friends?

Yes, it doesn't. yet. They did have to go b2p to save the game already. Maybe now they decided to look into ways to keep more players playing. Maybe we'll have more vertical progression (meh) or maybe we'll have different options each locked behind content - kinda like what we have now but also with players rewarded for their effort that was needed to clear vet HMs.

No, sorry, All we have here is your opinion based on nothing except for how you think things should be + what you claim your friends told you VS studies in behavioral psychology. It's up to ZOS to do their research and decide what way is better.

idk

When players begin to belittle other players comments as you have been, rather than adding to the conversation it tends to derail the thread and to often leads to the thread being closed so I am heading out. I would rather participate in conversations where someone actually has something to say rather than bashing the comments on others.

If you choose to actually make a comment to further enlighten us about your actual opinion then I will be happy to take a look at it.

Either way, enjoy the game.

Lord-Otto

@Artis

First of all, Datto is not my friend. He's an extremely well-known Destiny-streamer who plays the game as thoroughly as one can. He was the one solving a certain raid puzzle for the whole community, for example.
That makes him a good candidate for my claim. If someone as dedicated as him quits a game because he will never complete it, what does that say about those "carrot-on-the-stick-studies"?

WoW is a shadow of its original glory. It has lost substantial subscribers after a point. While you could argue that's due to other games imitating WoW, the answer has already been researched, and it was actually the grind problem that put people off.

You said yourself Elder Scrolls gives you exploration and weight to your actions. That IS content. If it was grind, you had to farm wolves for leather to make boots for every 10 miles you walk in-game.

The studies you mention are only short-lived. You can get people to play your game only so much with grind. Because they will burn out. Sooner or later. And once they have, they will leave for good. And for a game that wants to live longer than three years, those studies are therefore without value. Burn out must be avoided.

You might not like the vMoL skin, fine. You still got the title and achievement. If you want to grind for gear, then I have a suggestion:
Only way to get an Asylum weapon is Vivec. When you become emp in that campaign, you're getting a random Asylum weapon.
This should keep you grinding a while. Sounds fantastic to me, right?

Artis

idk wrote: »

When players begin to belittle other players comments as you have been, rather than adding to the conversation it tends to derail the thread and to often leads to the thread being closed so I am heading out. I would rather participate in conversations where someone actually has something to say rather than bashing the comments on others.

If you choose to actually make a comment to further enlighten us about your actual opinion then I will be happy to take a look at it.

Either way, enjoy the game.

No one is belittling your comments. I'm just stating the fact - it's not opinion vs opinion. It's studies vs your beliefs. Is your opinion based on anything except for your intuition?

Lord-Otto wrote: »

@Artis

First of all, Datto is not my friend. He's an extremely well-known Destiny-streamer who plays the game as thoroughly as one can. He was the one solving a certain raid puzzle for the whole community, for example.
That makes him a good candidate for my claim. If someone as dedicated as him quits a game because he will never complete it, what does that say about those "carrot-on-the-stick-studies"?

Not as extremely well-known as you think, apparently. And still not an argument. It's one person. Besides, how do you measure dedication? In videos made? I mean, we had a couple of those here in ESO, they already left. They used the game to promote themselves and make money. However, there are tons of players who played since release and didn't leave. You just don't know them. What does it say about the studies? Nothing. That they still possibly describe the majority of players and 1 player doesn't change the situation much. I mean, you could refer to psychology having 40% reproducibility rate, but pointing at 1 example and saying that it somehow falsifies the who statistic? No. You have no point here. If a study says 50% of population are men and you show me a woman with 30 women, does it say anything about a study? No.

Lord-Otto wrote: »

WoW is a shadow of its original glory. It has lost substantial subscribers after a point. While you could argue that's due to other games imitating WoW, the answer has already been researched, and it was actually the grind problem that put people off.

Still the largest MMORPG. It has outdated graphics, there are other games, and the idea is kinda old - and still it's the biggest one. Now, the answer has been researched you say? Please, link the publication. Not to mention, that how come they didn't change it if they know for sure it hurts them...

Lord-Otto wrote: »

The studies you mention are only short-lived. You can get people to play your game only so much with grind. Because they will burn out. Sooner or later. And once they have, they will leave for good. And for a game that wants to live longer than three years, those studies are therefore without value. Burn out must be avoided.

You might not like the vMoL skin, fine. You still got the title and achievement. If you want to grind for gear, then I have a suggestion:
Only way to get an Asylum weapon is Vivec. When you become emp in that campaign, you're getting a random Asylum weapon.
This should keep you grinding a while. Sounds fantastic to me, right?

They are short-lived, because... ? Because you think so? Sorry, didn't convince. Again, all you're saying you can find in papers. You think they will leave for good because you would? Well, sorry, no. It's shown that they will leave for good if they get rewards easy and those rewards don't reflect competence. What you're saying... Might be true? Idk, is it based on some studies or just your intuition?

I can only have one title active and title is not different from a skin - you either like it or not. A reward is needed that I will wear whether I like it or not. Like some gear that is BiS. Your suggestion is not grind. In this scenario other players actively don't let you get something. Grind = you're only fighting odds and time. Your suggestion - no matter how time you put in, it's possible that you won't get any reward whatsoever in any type or trait. Now if you said getting them in Rewards for the worthy (which would be just that - dumb grind), then I'd say - sure, but it's just too easy and still doesn't reflect competence unlike vet HM. I am immune to all those PvE vs PvP arguments. It's an MMO world, which is complex and has different aspects. PvP and PvE are the same thing - you have enemies, enemies have certain skills, you fight them and change your approach based on what they are using.

Btw, you suggestion is already in game - if I want a costume or a throne I have to get an emperor somehow. And those rewards aren't used in PvP....

idk

Actually, you haven't really cited studies outside of over generalization.

Maybe I missed it. Link the studies again. Let's make sure they are not conducted in a vacuum of the antiquated games I think I've seen mentioned in here. So glad this is nothing like WoW. Lol

We also know the fact that your game play doesn't fit with the OPPINION your spouting. We know for a fact you raid to improve, get better scores and such. Your nice raid leader stated as much.

Od how your game play doesn't even come close to supporting your oppinion. What does that's say about the studies of antiquated games you are using to suport your antiquated oppinion. You think your talking fact yet it's merely oppinion. Nothing more than that.

Artis

They are somewhere above in this thread. I already closed relevant tabs in my browser. They are conducted for sample situations "task-reward". I mean, it's behavioral psychology. They won't bother with certain games. There are no studies done on certain games as far as I could find.

I am just one person. I'm not defending what's better for me. I'm discussing what's better for the game. As far as my desires go , I just want cool graphics, mechanics, balance and high FPS.

That doesn't say anything about studies. Studies say that the majority of students are female. Showing a male student doesn't suddenly mean the study is wrong.

Again - same mistake as another humanities major from above. Outliers don't disprove anything. I never said that every single player is described by these (or any) studies. No, it's not merely an opinion. There are opinions about food, music, art. Not about trends and numbers. This "opinion" is based on studies suggesting that that's how human brain works. What is your opinion based on except for your (and people you talked to) experience?

idk

Lol. There is proof staring at you in the mirror and you see it in game every day yet you cling to studies.

ESO has a vibrant raiding community yet they've never locked any gear behind clearing HM if any content like you seem to be saying is so important. Yea, guess it is not. Check out the various servers. Granted some servers are more vibrant than others.

Another interesting tidbit of information that demonstrates locking gear behind the highest level content doesn't do jack to keep raiders interested. It's the development of content that really keeps it doing. Keeps the interest.

Case in point. SWTOR stopped developing decent raid content. The more serious raiders left the game. How SWTOR keep interest in raiding is a weekly gimmick tied to raiding and all other aspects of the game.

And that's a game that has a design like WoW, the standard bearer for the old silly way to manage gear. Omg. So glad those studies of yours are collecting dust and ESO, as well as other games, shows they're mistaken.

Thx for playing but your wrong.

Artis

Let me repeat it again - when statistics predicts something for X% one negative outcome is not a proof of anything. I'm just one person. Studies work with large numbers and are more relevant than my experience.

ESO's raiding community is far from vibrant. Weekly leaderboards don't fill anymore, for example, and most results are the same players playing alts.

That doesn't demonstrate anything. That's you making a guess. Do you have anything you base this on?

SWTOR example is irrelevant. Of course when content stops = the game just dies. But is it relevant to ESO? Do they have bis gear locked? Can we compare how fast raiders left with no content but locked gear vs how fast they'd leave with new content but no reward? Finally, did they really leave or is it one of those monthly "this game is dying" type of thing?Not to mention that it was f2p and that changes a lot and affects a lot, too. If 50 end game raiders left but 500 new players came and stayed - that's a good gambit for the game.

How is that the same design as wow? The payment model is different to begin with. The game that has a design like WoW is WoW. And WoW is still there and is coming strong.

I'm not wrong, you are in denial. I'm asking you again - is your opinion based on anything or are you just pulling ideas out of your head? So far that's how it looks - random collection of facts and their interpretation by you. Vs behavioral psychology and published studies. Sorry, but no, the latter is much more convincing for me and - I'm sure - for ZOS as well. But sure if you have any studies suggesting you are write - please refer to them.

DPShiro

Raiding community vibrant?


Ehl Oh Ehl.

idk

Lets put this into perspective since your opinion is based on an antiquated view of what works in MMOs.

History has seen various medical treatments that were considered successful in their day. Modern medicine finds some of those treatments barbaric and other treatments as a juvenile step in what is used today.d

Your opinion fits somewhere in that area and whatever your "studies" found in years past fall into the same category.

Even you state that content is a driving factor and I would suggest it is the driving factor for players interest in raiding. Your raiding habits, as stated earlier, support this since you clearly raid because you enjoy it, not for the gear. The gear is very much irrelevant if the content and game lose the interest of players. Again, you have stated you agree with that.

Welcome to a new era in MMOs. New and improved in the context of this discussion of oppinions.

Oh, I am not making a guess at ESO's raiding being vibrant. I see it very active. More active on some servers than others.

I am including a link to the PC leaderboards for vHoF. Not only do I see you have a solid vHoF score, but I also see a strong difference between EU and NA. EU does seem to be significantly more vibrant that NA. I seriously doubt locking tierd gear behind content (gear that actually makes a difference) would change anything for the better on either server and you have provided more information in support of how things are now than what your opinion states.

Thx again, enjoy the game.

Artis

No. Let's repeat it again. My opinion is based on studies in behavioral psychology and is basically not just an opinion. It's about works with a human brain, what increases or decreases motivation to do anything. 5th time (or 6th?) - what is your opinion based on except for your intuition? Can you like relevant sources? thanks in advance.

And do you know how throughout the history we moved from bad medicines to better medicines and from flat earth model to spherical earth? There were studies proving old results to be wrong, explaining why they are wrong (sometimes) or showing a new method predicting good results, which could be verified/obtained.

What is your opinion based on? Can we see those studies/research? Any numbers whatsoever? Or is it based on your guesses and beliefs and you are seriously arguing beliefs vs research right now? The quote marks are inappropriate there, because they are real studies. Peer-reviewed and published.

Once again, I am no one in the big picture. Moreover, what you said is not necessarily true. For example, I don't raid old trials. Who knows if I raided new trials if there was no carrot for me, gear or not? So far there is. Now would I prefer to be able to get gear no one else can? Yeah, why wouldn't I?

New era in the context of discussing opinions wut? Opinions are discussed just like before. Argument, logical fallacies, burden of proof didn't go anywhere. Also, human brain still works the same, a few years is nothing compared to hundreds of thousands years of evolution. Behavior psychology still trumps your opinion and intuition. Or did picture change and research showed something new? If you're challenging the paradigm the burden of proof is on you and it's up to you to show sources proving what you're saying. Go ahead. I'm still waiting for the sources. And now, an example of 1 or 100 people without making sure the sample is representative etc etc is not a valid source.

Won't argue about vibrant. I saw it more vibrant in the past. Where weekly leaderboards would fill up all the time and you weren't guaranteed a spot there even if the run was reasonably decent. Guess we have different thresholds. And as you correctly noted - EU seems to be more active than NA. Maybe EU is vibrant like NA used to be a couple years ago idk. NA PC seems to only have a handful of guilds.

idk

Artis wrote: »

And do you know how throughout the history we moved from bad medicines to better medicines and from flat earth model to spherical earth?

Exactly the point I was making.

Thx for bringing that up. As for the details, I respect we have differing opinions.

Have a good day.

Artis wrote: »

Won't argue about vibrant. I saw it more vibrant in the past. Where weekly leaderboards would fill up all the time and you weren't guaranteed a spot there even if the run was reasonably decent. Guess we have different thresholds. And as you correctly noted - EU seems to be more active than NA. Maybe EU is vibrant like NA used to be a couple years ago idk. NA PC seems to only have a handful of guilds.

As for this, yes, I remember those days as well. One had to basically do HM, which was really easy anyhow, to get on the leaderboard. Fortunately they scaled the level of the trials so they were no longer 2-4 levels below us.