Amottica wrote: »

I am putting my entire comment you replied to last since the bulk of it was edited out. Leaving out the bulk of my comment pointing out the solid objective fact of reputation systems and how they are just plain lazy "content".

Its not "edited out", your comment still exists. I quoted the specific part of your argument that I saw is problematic- the subjective assumption that warranted being pushed back against.

But you already acknowledged your own subjectiveness, and I already responded to it, and pointed out why I thought it important to this discussion to highlight it. We seem to agree on that already.

I merely pointed out the fact that a big part of my comment was completely objective based on actual observation of such systems in other games. That objective and accurate assessment does not seem to be in question.

I don't see where you pointed out that your opinion was based on actual observation of such systems in other games for it to even be accurate, objective, or in question.

I do respect that some people may desire to grind years-old content over and over again for some new shiny

Given how you characterise it, the stated "respect" is surprising. I think it would be more fair to say that people are not only OK with being given reasons to return to content that ZOS obviously put a huge amount of effort into creating, that it would be wasteful for them not to.

I fail to see how that is good for the game when new content is not only significantly more interesting but is also what we pay for.

You fail to see it because no one is arguing that. The two are not mutually exclusive. And there's no reason that ZOS couldn't spend time making the system unique or engaging.

Amottica wrote: »

TinyDragon wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

A reputation system is nothing more than another grind to get people to go to old areas for no reason other than to do the dailies and such all over again. They are awful and boring and lazy as it does not offer new playable content.

In *your* opinion, you mean.

I *want* reasons to go to old areas.

I want it to be incentivised to do so with rewards.

@Supreme_Atromancer

Are you suggesting that is my opinion? If so it is far from the mark.

Sorry for being unclear. I'm suggesting that in the comment I quoted you appear to be stating subjective opinion as objective fact.

But it is an objective fact since reputation systems drive players back to old areas to repeat old content which is exactly what I said. That is exactly what the initial implementation of a reputation system is about. Not subjective but factual since it does not add any actual playable content to the game.

The only part that is subjective is that I find doing the same content over and over again that I have already done dozens of times boring. I prefer new content to explore since that is what I pay for.

I think it's pretty unlikely they'd put work into a reputation system and just drop it in with no other ways. If they put it in some of these areas that are rather empty, there wouldn't be any content to utilise towards a reputation system. So there would need to be new content added to facilitate this system anyway.

I personally think this could be really fun, there could be different reasons to build reputation for different players. Having different rewards depending on who you're helping would be novel, like farmers giving some crops or cultists giving more magical rewards. There's a chance for players to help people that aligns with their character, and in places that aligns with their character. Perhaps they could even give titles or clothes on a temporary basis so you could see the areas your character helps out in.

Such systems utilize existing repeatable content in older areas of the game without adding anything new to those areas other than a reputation vendor. I have yet to see such a system add new playable content to these older areas when they create such a system. The only place new content for reputation is added is in the new areas but that is content that would have been added anyways since dailies are a common part of new zones.

You've missed the context of the contribution of all the other people on this thread, that I am specifically referring to.

OP's talk of the underutilised places; like palaces interiors. BlueRaven's ayleid spot, there's nothing there to utilise. Jaraal's Ayleid Nexus in Murkmire, there's nothing there to utilise. SupremeAtromancer's mention of Blackwood Borderlands Sanctuary. And there's a bunch more that got mentioned, and plenty more places that we got to once and never return to, that have no content to utilise.

Perhaps all the systems you've seen do this, but that's not what I'm talking about, and not the focus of this thread.

rpa wrote: »

Reputation grinds are a cancer. Not the reason I quit WoW but one of the reasons.

Right there with you on that one!

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I am putting my entire comment you replied to last since the bulk of it was edited out. Leaving out the bulk of my comment pointing out the solid objective fact of reputation systems and how they are just plain lazy "content".

Its not "edited out", your comment still exists. I quoted the specific part of your argument that I saw is problematic- the subjective assumption that warranted being pushed back against.

But you already acknowledged your own subjectiveness, and I already responded to it, and pointed out why I thought it important to this discussion to highlight it. We seem to agree on that already.

I merely pointed out the fact that a big part of my comment was completely objective based on actual observation of such systems in other games. That objective and accurate assessment does not seem to be in question.

I don't see where you pointed out that your opinion was based on actual observation of such systems in other games for it to even be accurate, objective, or in question.

I do respect that some people may desire to grind years-old content over and over again for some new shiny

Given how you characterise it, the stated "respect" is surprising. I think it would be more fair to say that people are not only OK with being given reasons to return to content that ZOS obviously put a huge amount of effort into creating, that it would be wasteful for them not to.

I fail to see how that is good for the game when new content is not only significantly more interesting but is also what we pay for.

You fail to see it because no one is arguing that. The two are not mutually exclusive. And there's no reason that ZOS couldn't spend time making the system unique or engaging.

Yet the objective fact part notes is what really matters and points to the flaws with such a system.

The subjective opinion part that you are focusing on is merely an opinion and carries much less weight to such a fact. We all have our opinions just as you have expressed yours. I respect that but I prefer to stand by facts.

Amottica wrote: »

We all have our opinions just as you have expressed yours.

Your statement is true, but when I put my opinion out there, it is intended to be discussed, agreed upon, refuted, or shown to be inaccurate. Especially when it is a premise in support of what you're selling as "objective fact". Those things should be made explicit, discussed and tested. Speaking generally.

Regarding the reputation system, when it becomes clear that you mean that it is awful and boring *in your opinion*, it tends to also draw attention to the fact that many may not feel the same way, and that does become relevant to the discussion. Because if people, in fact, could enjoy the system, the "developer laziness" argument could become irrelevant. That should also be called out.

FTR, I'm happy to continue discussing this. I feel like your argument has some problems. If you mean to say that it is your opinion, and you aren't willing to discuss it, or if this discussion becomes frustrating, I'm also happy to drop it.

Gnesnig wrote: »

CoronHR wrote: »

yeah the antiquities system is good for that, but you never re-enter any interiors. like the palace in rimmen...it's gorgeous, but you'll see it for only a short period of time.

The house that's currently returned to the store, is the wedding palace from the thieves guild quest line. Perhaps that is a good option as well: make those places available as player housing.

ah, i see what you mean. use the entire rimmen or senchal palace as a player home that's located somewhere. that's nice.

a more modest idea could be to offer an apartment inside the palace to players, as if you're a special member of the court and you have housing quarters. then these spaces would get used, similarly to how one of the cantons in vivec works with that tiny apartment

here's a totally bonkers idea which is really off the subject...offer homes that can only be owned by one player, and then the cities would have to expand...to the tune of hundreds if not thousands of homes...to accommodate everyone. and players could sell their homes, and the market would set the price. i'm not even sure i'd want this nightmare, but it's a laugh to think about

Amottica wrote: »

The first reply to my comment was nothing more than trying to say I want rewards

No, you've got it wrong. The first reply to your comment was calling out subjectivity.

I added that I wanted there to be rewards, because you suggested there would be little reason to a reputation system; incentivizing it would give a reason. That's neither completely false, nor irrelevant.

Would like Zos to pick an area from the past and have a fishing event either monthly or during one of the events so I can finally get the fishing achievement! Trying to get people to take 5 minutes to fish together is brutal.

Amottica wrote: »

I do not see a reason why the opinion part of my comment was so upsetting.

Given you don't see a reason, it would seem strange to depend on that assumption.

Most of the posts in the forums are statements of opinion.

I hope you're not implying that I should have to argue every single one of them in order for my engagement with what you said to not be suspicious or emotional.

FTR, when you've responded in a fashion that I feel misinterprets something, I've felt inclined to clarify. I don't think you're wrong to say you think it would be a bad idea, or that for you, it would be boring. I even think that your experience with other games might be interesting and could have weight. I still might ask in what ways those experiences are different. I thought some of what you said was problematic, and that was my whole agenda, to pull those out. Nothing more than that. I'm here on the forums because I love this game, am passionate about it, and very interested in its past, present and future. Most ideas probably aren't worth engaging. I don't want to come here just to read thoughtless takes, that's boring. I open the browser hoping to find something to make me think, to change my mind on something, or to push back against ideas where I think its worthwhile to do so. Its just engaging with the community, no more than that.