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

[Awha]

I have no place nor have I said that I did. All I am saying is that the value something is determined by a the individual.

[Awha]

On my phone sorry for double post. Either way you are right both sides of this conversation simply boil down to a difference of views. Now by no means have I implied that one way of viewing this topic as wrong, just different. For many as stated in the other thread the reward is a bonus the true value for many is based around the experience. For others it is the reward and not once have I said either was wrong unlike Ava. They are just different how value is determined.

[Awha]

Really was not my intent to say one way of seeing it is wrong, I just wanted to show that effort is subjective and what determines the value of something is dependent on the person. So neither side is right or wrong in which what the value of the top 100 rewards represent. As such a request is being made to those that can enact change what comes of it is dependent on those in power.

[Mantrus]

Yeah, people will interpret the value of the top 100 rewards differently. But let's go back to the original question why value matters in the first place:

Though leaving that aside why does it matter if someone less skilled has the chance to obtain the same reward over the course of time, while not being able to reach the skill level required to get top 100? Does the fact that someone farmed say 200 feast matches over the course of a year (just an example) detract from the effort and skill one put in to reach top 100 when said reward was relevant?

Players put subjective value in the exclusivity of the past top 100 rewards. If you remove the exclusivity of the reward, then you change a quality of the reward and in turn change its valuation by the players. While the value is subjectively determined, the fact the value exists is an objective fact, and it's being affected. The valuation itself is also not invalid, as we've just discussed. So this change is taking something objective away from the players, regardless of how other players interpret the reward. While the decision is up to those in power, this fact should be acknowledged by the decision makers and those who argue for this move.

[Awha]

As I mentioned before I do understand that different factors determine the value of the reward. As I have acknowledged that if exclusivity is an marker of the reward one desires then any change will effect that. However if the reason one takes part in an activity is the sense of enjoyment, competition and desire to prove they are the best then logically speaking the amount the amount of people who have the item should not deter from the value of the reward because the reward represents the accomplishment of that achievement. Now if SE comes out and says that certain rewards should remain exclusive fair enough End of the day a request is being made what comes of said request is on SE.

All I am trying to say that the markers one places on a item to determine value are subjective. Even if the factors are subjective I do agree that the effects based on those factors can be objective such as if the exclusive nature of a reward is an aspect that determines value, as I have said any change to the system will detract from the accomplishment. Though if someone claims that they take part in something for the competitive aspect, enjoyment, striving to be best all none of those reasons inherently lose worth and logically should not effect the value of an an accomplishment. That is the main point I am trying to get across.

In the end we are in agreement since I have said if exclusive nature of a reward is one of the markers used to determine value then yeah making it obtainable through different means will detract from the value. All I wish is that people would be more upfront about it instead of making the claim that it would inherently ruin the sense of accomplishment since it objectively will not, or will not foster a sense of competition since as far as I can tell that is not objectively true either. Though it is objectively true if one takes part in something simply because the reward is rare then yes making it more common does objectively detract from the value of the reward. This is a claim I never refuted, and I am in agreement.

English is not my native tongue, coupled with the fact I suffer from learning disabilities I tend to ramble / repeat my points. Sorry about that.

[Stormfur]

Players put subjective value in the exclusivity of the past top 100 rewards. If you remove the exclusivity of the reward, then you change a quality of the reward and in turn change its valuation by the players. While the value is subjectively determined, the fact the value exists is an objective fact, and it's being affected.

I can respect that. But by the same token, why are there no exclusive rewards for other game content that has leaderboards? Palace of the Dead, Top Frontlines, Top GC contributor, Top FC, Granted, these things take different levels of effort, but they are worth it for some players nonetheless. Does a player who reached the top 100 in PVP work harder than one who got the highest score in POTD? It's totally subjective.


Anyway... the argument is that if you take something that's already rare and allow more players to obtain it, it will no longer have that air of exclusivity. No one will know (or care) that you hit the Top 100. But I'd argue that this is already the case with everything else in the game. If I see someone with a Sigma Savage weapon, I think to myself, "wow, they were good enough to clear Sigma Savage. That's awesome." But over time, that awe lessens as our levels grow and more people obtain those same things.

Does that mean that person who got it early on is any less skilled? Absolutely not. They got it when it was relevant. Every time I see someone with the hellhound armor or the mount, or the eagle coat in-game, I stop and congratulate them because I know it took a lot to get there. But if I started seeing more people with the mount or the armor or whatever, it wouldn't affect the awe I felt when I first saw someone with that item. See what I mean? It would become more commonplace, but that player who had it originally knows that they did what it took to get there back when it was current content.

But it has been what...2, 3 years now? That would be like stopping to congratulate someone who has the full Dreadwyrm set.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

By exclusive, I was referring to a reward being exclusive to one source instead of having multiple ways of getting the same reward. I am open to rereleasing previous PvP rewards if the method of achieving them remains the same: obtain top 100.

Except both sources are not measured equally. Extreme Primal and Savage mounts become increasingly easier as time goes whereas top 100 doesn't.

[Awha]

For some reason it is not letting me edit my post. Just wanted to clarify that markers that determine value are subjective and vary from person to person. However even if the markers are subjective I do understand they the effects of a change can be objective but when it comes down to it at the core the value of and significance of an item is still completely subjective. So if that is the case is it really fair for anyone to say if one way of seeing is right or wrong. Thus the request. I was never trying to have a debate with Ava since as I mentioned we have a differing views as to what determines value.

[Awha]

Guess in the end my stance is for me if value is subjective sure depending on what you choose determine the value of something can have an objective change if one factor is altered but end of the day it was a subjective choice to place such a value marker. If SE feels the same so be it, but for me personally and a couple of others the value of something is determined by the owner and nothing can detract from the achievement it represents. Not sure how someone could say that this line of thinking is objectively wrong. Just as I will not say a more materialistic view is wrong. Just different.

[Mantrus]

.

I never said other achievements shouldn't get the rewards, but that's irrelevant. This is about changing the quality of a reward given out already.

You congratulate them because it took a lot of effort to get there. Then normally, if you change the method of getting the reward, you change the perception of effort to obtain the reward. And don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating to never allow people to get the top 100 rewards again; if it were to be released again, I'd like it to be through the same achievement of top 100. If you change the method to get the reward at all, then how people perceive the effort will change. And thinking that a method like "win 200 feast matches" is the same amount of effort is just an opinion. In this regard, keeping the method the same is the best option.

Except both sources are not measured equally. Extreme Primal and Savage mounts become increasingly easier as time goes whereas top 100 doesn't.

Top 100 does become a less strict achievement as time passes. Top 100 rewards are released for 2 seasons in a row. The second season always has a lower top 100 rating minimum to achieve than the first. Whether SE should artificially lower the difficulty bar or just let it organically occur would just be an argument of just how much easier you would want the achievement to be.

.

That viewpoint isn't wrong, but it's not mutually exclusive or contradictory to my point as well. If we compare the options based on the views as the criteria, there is an objectively more right option.

1) Change the exclusivity or top 100 achievement
Your view: value determined by owner so no problems
My view: people's valuations change for the worse (objective loss)

2) Keep the achievement the same
Your view: value determined by owner, but nothing changes so no valuation changes
My view: nothing changes so no valuation changes

Basically, the view you're putting forth doesn't contradict keeping things the same and it doesn't inherently advocate for changing things.