The Expert roulette design is extremely bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

ordinarily i'm not one to use anyone's length of time played against them but some of y'all have clearly only started playing either half-way through if not the very end of shadowbringers and it shows.

of course expert roulette is basically empty. they release more level 90 content as the patches go on. this isn't a new concept. shadowbringers only had 3 level 80 dungeons at the start, too. stormblood was also the same and while stormblood had like, two more endgame dungeons said two were just hard-mode versions of dungeons that already exist.

---

Something having been unnecessarily constrained/wasteful for a long time doesn't make it any less... wasteful.

For players who have no desire to level everything (or just level more quickly), all but the means of efficiently acquiring post-leveling weekly-cap currency will fall out of use. There's a lot to be gained from allowing past content to scale up and add variety to our Expert Roulette tiers or otherwise adjusting that most efficient means of currency acquisition to allow for greater variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Something having been unnecessarily constrained/wasteful for a long time doesn't make it any less... wasteful.

---

it's not constrained. the roulette system only provides bonuses. if players were penalized for queuing the traditional way then your argument would be more substantial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

it's not constrained. the roulette system only provides bonuses. if players were penalized for queuing the traditional way then your argument would be more substantial.

---

That's... not what constrained means. It isn't necessarily a matter of being punished or not. (Though, losing a large chunk of reward efficiency if ever you get tired of running the same 2-3 dungeons is arguably a punishment.)

Expert's Roulette's constraint is that, despite eventually having always been the most efficient roulette for keeping up with the game --and often (therefore, in part) the only one worth doing for players with less time-- it will only ever at most 3 possible pieces of content. It is run far more often than the other roulettes yet only offers, at best, one possibility more than Main Scenario Roulette.

Again, the important thing is that one particular grind path offers far greater reward efficiency... yet far less choice than what would otherwise be, reward-efficiency willing, its competitors. Making it less constrained (i.e., not funneling so much of our activity into the same 2 dungeons again and again) would require adjusting that grind path itself rather, such as by offering weekly Challenge Log bonuses for various, weekly-rotated content pieces up to a shared completion cap, or that we broaden what goes into that path. And developing a means to scale content up would help tremendously with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That's... not what constrained means. It isn't necessarily a matter of being punished or not. (Though, losing a large chunk of reward efficiency if ever you get tired of running the same 2-3 dungeons is arguably a punishment.)

Expert's Roulette's constraint is that, despite eventually having always been the most efficient roulette for keeping up with the game --and often (therefore, in part) the only one worth doing for players with less time-- it will only ever at most 3 possible pieces of content. It is run far more often than the other roulettes yet only offers, at best, one possibility more than Main Scenario Roulette.

Again, the important thing is that one particular grind path offers far greater reward efficiency... yet far less choice than what would otherwise be, reward-efficiency willing, its competitors. Making it less constrained (i.e., not funneling so much of our activity into the same 2 dungeons again and again) would require adjusting that grind path itself rather, such as by offering weekly Challenge Log bonuses for various, weekly-rotated content pieces up to a shared completion cap, or that we broaden what goes into that path. And developing a means to scale content up would help tremendously with that.

---

while you are right about the definition, you still understand my post and are arguing semantics to support your argument. you also are repeating points that you edited in AFTER your initial post AFTER i had already replied and are treating me as if i had simply ignored it all.

that said while you are correct the ideal system you describe is simply mentor roulette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

the ideal system you describe is simply mentor roulette.

---

That is beyond disingenuous.

For Mentor Roulette to provide the same benefits as an Expert Roulette with a larger pool of dungeons, it would have to (A) cover the same kind of content, (B) have roughly the same average efficiency (e.g. 90 weekly tomes in ~18 minutes' time), (C) an equally small of a standard deviation within that efficiency, and (D) be accessible to everyone.

Mentor Roulette (A) does not merely cover dungeons, (B) is not remotely as efficient, (C) has notoriously large deviation in completion time, and (D) is accessible to only a small portion of the playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That is beyond disingenuous.

---

disingenuous like how someone might try to edit in an argument after their initial post and then proceed to try and hold someone to said argument which did not exist at the time they replied?

i don't know what i've done to invoke your ire but this isn't a fight and i see no reason why you feel the need to be so openly hostile; nor do i see a point in continuing this discussion since i had already replied above that i agreed with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

disingenuous like how someone might try to edit in an argument after their initial post and then proceed to try and hold someone to said argument which did not exist at the time they replied?

i don't know what i've done to invoke your ire but this isn't a fight and i see no reason why you feel the need to be so openly hostile; nor do i see a point in continuing this discussion since i had already replied above that i agreed with you.

---

There's no ire here. I'm merely pointing out where something is either quite mistaken or purposely conflatious. If you would claim that X is the same as Y, they should at the least be more similar than not. Mentor roulette does not provide all that is being asked for (it's about as far from it as can still be a roulette that may include a dungeon), and what is being asked for does not come merely from somehow being unfamiliar with Expert Roulette being only 2-3 dungeons at a time (no one is; familiarity is a non-factor here).

The portion following "again" did not merely reflect the 2-minute-later clarification in my single edit, but that of the points I and others had already made multiple times earlier in the thread.

The fact they didn't know what defines the expert roulette tells me this was a bait thred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hynaku

I never liked Expert Roulette never had good enough rewards and get no Exp from it. Might be why last time every ran it was back in 3.0.

---

Its not supposed to have crazy good rewards....Its only meant to help you get your foot in the door for the ilvl requirement for EX trials and as a bonus for the new tomes. And why would you get exp from a level capped dungeon?

Do you all not understand how progression works? You start in expert for tomes and drops, move on to EX trials, then raids then savage. Only reason to continue with expert is for tomes if you're not doing other things like hun trains where you can cap in like an hour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puremallace

For a while is a hell of a nice way of saying 9 months of the same 2 dungeons in the expert roulette. My suggestion is simple and it is to copy something Blizzard did in WoW. At end game throw everything in the current expansion into the expert queue. Scale up the useless gear we all desyth anyways and also the mobs.

There are dungeons that I did during Endwalker that I am 100% confident I will never see again or if I do it will be 2 to 3 years down the line. That seems like one hell of a waste of resources on the part of Square Enix.

---

By your logic why bother making games at all then?

3 dungeons, 2 dungeons, 8 dungeons. Does it even matter when they all play exactly the same sans bosses and they all have undertuned pulls? Noticing the different scenery they have is only interesting the first time.