Request: Please give us alternate ways to obtain PVP armour and weapons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

Just because you say "no, it's actually this" doesn't make it true. SE has made it clear that they want Feast to be a competition and top 100 rewards are meant to foster that sentiment.

Regardless though, you have been getting plenty of examples of "exclusive" items that aren't available to the regular public. And as of right now, Ultimate Coil as it stands seems to be kept level synced forever, which surprise surprise is SE changing the way they do things. I can also list the title like necromancer which only a very few people have been able to achieve, and SE doesn't seem to making moves to make it so the unworthy can achieve it.

Just accept you are wrong

Edit: You should also stop making the claim that SE should never try to innovate and change how they operate their game. You are basically like this "doing things differently is WRONG, it should NEVER change cause it's the way it's ALWAYS been..... I don't want to game to change even if it's a improvement!!!"

---

And you aren't correct because you twist arguments and insist you are.

Once again you reach to an example which defeats your own argument. Ultimate can be challenged at any time, provided you have seven other likeminded people with the skill to clear. PvP mounts are time exclusives. In 5.0, The Legend title can still be acquired. Can the Hellhound? The same applies to Necromancer. In fact, the first person to obtain it did so almost a full year after PotD's release; an impossible feat if PvP rules applied.

SE changed nothing. They're desperately trying to promote PvP. One mode having timed exclusivity when no other content does isn't changing their rules. It's simply showing an inconsistency and bias. Ironically, you insinuate this exclusivity is an improvement yet what dividends has it shown? Stormblood PvP borders on life support, Feast itself encourages sitting on your rank over actively competing and has generated little interest from the overall majority. An improvement would be getting people interested in all aspects of PvP. That hasn't happened since the Garo event. You know, the event which allowed everyone to get everything at their own pace.

The fact you consider this innovation is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

And you aren't correct because you twist arguments and insist you are.

---

N-no you wrong!!!! Nice sound argument there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

Once again you reach to an example which defeats your own argument. Ultimate can be challenged at any time, provided you have seven other likeminded people with the skill to clear. PvP mounts are time exclusives. In 5.0, The Legend title can still be acquired. Can the Hellhound? The same applies to Necromancer. In fact, the first person to obtain it did so almost a full year after PotD's release; an impossible feat if PvP rules applied.

---

The one rule that can be removed is the time exclusivity. I have and many others have suggested that players that achieve top 100 can purchase either a the current reward OR a past reward with the top 100 voucher they receive. This removes the timed aspect of the rewards, and keeps it as hard to achieve as it was in the past. I personally want to hear you say yes or no to this suggestion. If you say no it's obvious that your whole argument about time exclusivity is a sham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

SE changed nothing. They're desperately trying to promote PvP. One mode having timed exclusivity when no other content does isn't changing their rules. It's simply showing an inconsistency and bias. Ironically, you insinuate this exclusivity is an improvement yet what dividends has it shown? Stormblood PvP borders on life support, Feast itself encourages sitting on your rank over actively competing and has generated little interest from the overall majority.

---

Ultimate is brand new content that wasn't ever seen before. Diadem when released was a brand new concept in ff14. Are you going to say SE is somehow wrong in trying to release new and different content by saying they are being inconsistent? Please. If you keep following this inconsistency argument you are basically arguing against all and any change whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

N-no you wrong!!!! Nice sound argument there

---

You mean the same argument you've been making since the last thread we tangled in? Every single post of yours has boiled down to "I'm right because!" Usually after you've completely misrepresented the person you're arguing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

The one rule that can be removed is the time exclusivity. I have and many others have suggested that players that achieve top 100 can purchase either a the current reward OR a past reward with the top 100 voucher they receive. This removes the timed aspect of the rewards, and keeps it as hard to achieve as it was in the past. I personally want to hear you say yes or no to this suggestion. If you say no it's obvious that your whole argument about time exclusivity is a sham.

---

Is that better? Sure. It still remains inconsistent with every other piece of content and utterly fails as an incentive to motivate people into PvP. The sheer lack of interest speaks for itself. That being said, it's at least better than the current system. I'll grant you that much. Personally, I feel a Top 100 trophy or title suits PvP better as the reward itself is unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

Ultimate is brand new content that wasn't ever seen before. Diadem when released was a brand new concept in ff14. Are you going to say SE is somehow wrong in trying to release new and different content by saying they are being inconsistent? Please. If you keep following this inconsistency argument you are basically arguing against all and any change whatsoever.

---

In what universe does Ultimate or Diadem compare to an inconsistent reward structure between PvE and PvP? You keep trying to draw a correlation that simply doesn't exist. Making Ranked Feast have a mount only 600 people can ever acquire is not "brand new" content. It's a marketing ploy in the hopes people will be incentivized to try it not unlike say, tying an elaborate emote to a $150 statue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

.

---

Those asking for a change to the status quo are the ones pushing forward their perspective in order to initiate change. I didn't say people are wrong or invalid to want the reward, but I would argue that based on logic extrapolated from SE precedent, there's not sound reasoning for making the reward easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

You mean the same argument you've been making since the last thread we tangled in? Every single post of yours has boiled down to "I'm right because!" Usually after you've completely misrepresented the person you're arguing with.

---

You keep saying I am twisting your argument, but you never really address it in your response. At the end of the day it's just a talking point you use to try and discredit me with no evidence. Keep doing it though, it's cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

Is that better? Sure. It still remains inconsistent with every other piece of content and utterly fails as an incentive to motivate people into PvP. The sheer lack of interest speaks for itself. That being said, it's at least better than the current system. I'll grant you that much.

---

Doesn't seem PotD gets a lot of solo runner huh, they have to make necromancer a reward for floor 50 now I guess....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

In what universe does Ultimate or Diadem compare to an inconsistent reward structure between PvE and PvP? You keep trying to draw a correlation that simply doesn't exist. Making Ranked Feast have a mount only 600 people can ever acquire is not "brand new" content. It's a marketing ploy in the hopes people will be incentivized to try not unlike say, tying an elaborate emote to a $150 statue.

---

You keep arguing over how SE is inconsistent and that it's wrong. So you are readily saying that SE should do nothing new or different in how they operate their game. Also the reward structure is a part of "The Feast" which was new content. So should the Feast have never been created because it was "new and different?" It's actually amazing that you can argue against Square Enix evolving their game. I could only imagine that if SE released world first mounts or titles for savage you would be shrieking on how SE never did such a thing before. amazing

While you have never said those with differing views are wrong others have. As I mentioned before those in favor of the status quo do have the current system as a precedent but if at the end of the day both value propositions are inherently subjective why so some feel the need to call others wrong for how the view the topic and try to belittle the request for another means. Some even go as far to say people want the same reward for nothing when the majority have said no such thing.

Aviars, since you posed a question to me that I answered, now I'd like to pose one to you.

Just wondering, my feelings on the issue aside. Why do you feel you are entitled to a reward forever when every other reward in game, save ultimate and those bundled with physical items, can be had over time?

a12s, while still difficult, is much more accessible now.
Previous holiday and many exclusive items can be had on mog station
Even the minion hellhounds, which were originally exclusive top 10 rewards, are now obtainable via other methods in pvp.

Do you think making things easier somehow invalidates your original effort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormfur

Aviars, since you posed a question to me that I answered, now I'd like to pose one to you.

Just wondering, my feelings on the issue aside. Why do you feel you are entitled to a reward forever when every other reward in game, save ultimate and those bundled with physical items, can be had over time?

---

It's been explained many times in this thread and by others but since you don't seem willing to put this away AFTER agreeing with me on pretty much everything I'll explain it to you in the most simplest of terms. I don't think people who don't put the same effort into getting a reward should be entitled to the reward, period, and that isn't a wrong sentiment to have. I think with the proposal of people using the top 100 voucher to potential get a past reward is good enough, there wouldn't be a time exclusive aspect to the reward, and it still makes the reward as hard to get as before. There is nothing more to say about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormfur

a12s, while still difficult, is much more accessible now.
Previous holiday and many exclusive items can be had on mog station
Even the minion hellhounds, which were originally exclusive top 10 rewards, are now obtainable via other methods in pvp.

---

A12s and holiday items were never advertised as exlusive items only for top 100 players.

Also hellhound minions were changed from top 10 to readily available pretty much immediately due to whining. You know what they did do? They made a brand new item that was still exclusive to top 10 players. So I think that shows precedent to SE being committed to providing exclusive rewards that are not available to to average player. I also say to you SE has no reason to continue following what they did in the past forever, they are FREE to improve and evolve their game in any way they wish. Just because you guys like to spout the word "consistency" doesn't make it reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormfur

Do you think making things easier somehow invalidates your original effort?

---

Rewards advertised as hard to get made easier to get does lower value. Fact.

In the end you already agreed with me and others with the proposal we made, it's time for you to let it go.

Can we agree when we talk about value we are talking about how much something is worth to someone? In this context am I wrong to say that value is subjective? I think this is where a lot of the confusion came about. I do not think the majority are in disagreement with you that subjective value markers can have objective changes due to changes made to them. For personally I know that I worded by position as a means that assumed me share the same value system. When I spoke of value in the social context using the Joe 1234 having the access to the same mount should not detract from the personal value, only the social value. I was wrong since what I considered social value can be a factor to determine personal value.

We have differing views on this matter, but doesn't this go to show how in this context one view is not inherently wrong or right? Sure one can be more widely more acceptable by a larger margin of people, in this case you have the precedent of placed by the company supporting exclusive rewards for certain content. I mean I get you have the status quo on your side, but does that status quo mean that any request made to make a change of the system should be met with personal attacks, or treated like a moot or frivolous endeavor. People in this very thread have attacked others for their views if we can get past that maybe then we could have a proper discussion regarding the topic. Sure nothing may come of it, but maybe something will. In the end we are making a request, said request does have a direct impact on those that have the value marker of the item once being only meant for those that have showed the, commitment, effort, and skill and will objectively devalue the item due to the objective value proposition posed by SE.

What I am trying to say is just because SE is currently on your side it does not make any request to change the current system moot, or any side that is not in agreement with you wrong. In the end the markers that we choose to determine value are subjective, but changes can have an objective impact on said choices. Thing is SE is free to change their value proposition that is why we are posing the request to SE. Be in disagreement, argue your position but can either side truly said they are objective right or wrong on this matter. As it stands a few people seem to think they are objective correct because currently SE shares the same view. That view can easily change, and if it does ever change I do hope if anyone in favor of the current system is not meant with you are wrong because that is life or you are wrong since I have SE on my side.

It is okay to be in disagreement, but a topic like this does not have an objective truth, and no request made to change the current system should be met with personal attacks from either side. I am sorry if anything I have said in the past was seen as a personal attack, I do know that I could have said some harsh things and I know that due to situation not a native speaking coupled with learning disabilities my posts can be hard to read. Sorry about that, either way I do think we can have an interesting discussion if both sides are willing to admit that one either side in not inherently right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

I don't think people who don't put the same effort into getting a reward should be entitled to the reward, period, and that isn't a wrong sentiment to have.

---

It is not a wrong sentiment to have, and if I implied otherwise then I am sorry since for the confusion. Your sentiment, but being that is your personal belief on the subject same should be true for those that want consistency or for those that want exclusive rewards to be made obtainable by everyone in the community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

Rewards advertised as hard to get made easier to get does lower value. Fact.

---

This is also true if the value marker you place on a item is tied to the current value proposition posed by SE, and if SE did happen to change their value proposition for whatever reason said reward / item would lose value that is a fact. That is why we are making the request for differing means to obtain the rewards. Since SE is within their right to change their value proposition at anytime. Does not mean you have to agree with their choice if they ever changed it to make the rewards readily available for more players no it does not and it also does not make your position wrong if change were to happen. Just as those who are not in favor with the current system do not have to be pleased and are within their right to make a request for a change to be made. Sure you can be in disagreement but does not mean that the request is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Can we agree when we talk about value we are talking about how much something is worth to someone? In this context am I wrong to say that value is subjective? I think this is where a lot of the confusion came about.

---

There really isn't much more to say to you. I personally thought your conversation between Sieren made you understand but I guess I was wrong to think that. You always revert to your base talking points and act like repeating them over and over again is going to change minds. Quite a weak way to debate if you ask me. I'll try my best, yet again to make you understand, so please read carefully.

You make claims that personal value is the only value that matters and in this case, that only people like me can somehow devalue a certain item they find value in. Not only is that not the case in real life, it is just flat out wrong.

Top 100 items currently have there own materialistic value due to their rarity by sheer virtue of by only available to 100 players in each datacenter. In this instance people like you are trying to make it available to EVERYONE. You may like to say personal value is the only value that exists but it is a UNDENIABLE that you are lowering it's value in a certain way. You can't make the claim that only the person can devalue something, when it is flat out false. And you continuing to repeat that only personal value exists for everything isn't going to make it true ever. You like to say there is no objective "truth" in this debate. In this case this is the truth, hopefully you can accept it.