Why can't Dungeons be longer/harder, but more... piecework?

[linay]

Nearly all content in this game is time-gated content unless one ignores any and all rewards. Raids, Trials, Dungeons, challenge logs, PvP, side-content, etc., is all in some way time-gated. While not all players will care about the cappable rewards, most do consider reward systems as at least a nod to the intended direction of the game, if not a blatant pointer.

By time gated, do you mean the release schedule of content or how much of the content (or how often) you can do to receive its reward. I was under the impression the latter was being discussed, so trials and PVP are not time gated in that way.

Your comment about there always being a most efficient means likewise seems a bit disingenuous. Is it most efficient by .3%? By 3%? By 30%? The difference in perceived obligation between those is huge. 0.3% isn't noticed, period. 3% is noticeable under constraint. 30% is noticeable even to the most casual pursuit of a goal. The question isn't whether a most efficient means should exist, but rather whether it should be so much more efficient that it's apparent and significant to everyone. No one's railing at the fact that a meta may exist, for instance, but merely that it may effectively forces out everything else for what seems too large a portion of the player base. As the differences in performance increase, so does the operant conditioning. Our relative freedom then diminishes proportionately.

I would consider the difference in efficiency as not being significant enough to warrant complaint, especially when you can do all of it or mix and match what content you do.

Again, the reason I posed the question about roulettes, and how much systems should condition their players towards particular choices in the duration and locations of their playtime, is that as the game is increasingly streamlined, efficiency increasingly takes priority over engagement. We see this in the developers' designs and that does trickle down into player and community perceptions as to the shape and therefore intent of the game. (They then make requests for efficiency over engagement in ways that are easier for the devs to meet than requests for engagement over efficiency, and the feedback loop spirals on.)

I like that they exist. I just feel that given their current efficiency bonuses, they take too large a part in the game. Or, if you want to look from the surrounding content inward, I feel that too many other systems have seen their rewards stagnate as to be made increasingly less a part of the seemingly intended experience, which then narrows the game -- excessively, in this case.

I feel that excessive narrowing of the game harms the experience. While some structure is certainly a boon, and in catching up there are some parts that must be dispensed with to focus on a more core shared experience between players, when the shape of any game centers seemingly on efficiency or just the tools to accomplish something, it makes the means seem that much less important. Sure, players can go against the grain and ignore the signs and try their best to perceive things purely on their own criteria, but most experience games largely through their shape and apparent intent.

Now, is that all centered on Roulettes giving X bonus tomes? No. But I think we need to be less eager to ignore the fine details in favor of stark changes alone. Most losses veteran players will have noted to their experience over the years, especially if playing more than a single or few jobs, can better be attributed to the dozens of cuts of indirect changes than any one direct change.

Please explain the part in bold. By stagnated rewards, do you mean there are too many contents giving the same reward? If so, how does that make them less a part of the intended experience because I would think the opposite is true as then you can choose what you want to do and it would still be a valid choice.

On the other hand, it's true that if every content gives the same reward, you can favor the content that is more efficient, but again that is your choice. If every content gives the same reward, you can still make the choice to do the content that you prefer and sacrifice some efficiency while still working toward the same reward.

[Shurrikhan]

Please explain the part in bold.

Think of it like the more general concept it belongs to, content obsoletion. When rewards stagnate, by not growing with the new options presented or being integrated into new reward systems in some other way, their content generally dies out except over their course of leveling where they briefly remain the most efficient option to some set of players.

Now, that 'problem' is normal for any MMO. Each expansion spreads its prior content thinner and thinner. Many things will undoubtedly have to be sped up, made optional, or trimmed entirely. That on it's own isn't the problem, though. The problem is when something exists in such a way that it signals to the player that it isn't important in its own right; it's just a stepping stone to the real thing. We then go to the next stone, but it's shaped in such a way as to hint that it's not the real thing either. So on and so forth. The pre-cap game then becomes increasingly less about what you're doing, in any sort of way, as how you're doing it, and that "how" becomes increasingly narrowed towards speed. Anything that doesn't lend towards greater efficiency is then devalued, not because of any problem necessarily with the thing itself, but because it doesn't get you to the promised thing in the future (which we don't know, but have to assume, is coming and is better because of how watered down or thinned out what we're doing now is).

Now, only part of that can be fixed through later reward systems. It cannot fix how content feels the first time through. It certainly cannot fix how the early game combat experience amounts to so little of what it did before pruning. But it can at least make it feel like those past pieces of content are meant to be seen as part of the game's world, instead of just something to move past.

Both in ARR and HW, the game took more care to reinvigorate old content that would otherwise go obsolete. That seemed at least something of a design concern back then.

Now, that too was through shaped reward systems -- the same thing I've been critiquing the use of in my last few posts -- but there are differences in both context and application we should account for.

In ARR, for instance, relic books gave specific dungeons, raids, FATEs, and trials of greater value to a particular player. (That could have been improved by making you complete only the majority, rather than all, tasks per book, but at least it got the ball rolling.) ARR's Light system for later periods of relics then rotated densities of light, making it a community effort to quickly find out which few dungeons, couple trials, and which raid had bonuses for the two-hour period -- cycles of spreading and repeating that gave players plenty of reasons to group up and to socialize over shout and FC chats. In HW, Wanderer's Tail did basically what books probably should have done from the start -- their random choices gave more options in how to fit your random tasks alongside those of friend's while pursuing a row or column reward. Put simply, given where and how those systems were applied, shaped reward systems at that time benefited variance without detracting too heavily from player choice, all while encouraging social interaction. Though, as with nearly everything, it could have been improved upon, that's a fair sight better than we see now. Now, as with so much else, only the barest "essentials" remain, but they seem devoid of any larger purpose. They aid rare queues, and that's good, but the benefits could be far more and the negative effects nearly inexistant. Those benefits could include boons to social interaction and letting the player feel like they have 6+ years' worth of world to explore and enjoy. The negatives need not include, through systemically encouraged playtime intervals and durations, the relative discouragement of all else for anyone with little time per week; it needn't assert control without a plan to actually benefit the player's experience.

But that's what we seem to see so much of now: too much is given as if by obligation without an actual plan for how the player will benefit in the long-term and little caution for long-term consequences. "Dungeons don't matter because they're almost immediately obsolete." Design used to indicate a very different thought-process, even if it was mere coincidence to some plan to merely increase time played hours, and the game benefited for it.

To answer fully, though, content provision is just one many "other systems" that I feel has been shorted over the years. These also include things for which payoffs are increasingly diminished and therefore start to feel removed from the intended experience, like difficulty curves, combat complexity curves over class/job levels, positionals, crowd control, the (former) nuances of tanking, healing, and so much else. But the impacts of those things on the game -- save that most are not fixed with time or levels -- are surprisingly similar to the impacts felt in devaluing (or letting be devalued) past content or portions of the game world over time, and usually follow from similar design philosophies.

By stagnated rewards, do you mean there are too many contents giving the same reward? If so, how does that make them less a part of the intended experience because I would think the opposite is true as then you can choose what you want to do and it would still be a valid choice.

A stagnated reward is one which has stagnated; it has stopped growing -- or doing anything -- with or based on the circumstances around it. It's dropped out of the race, so to speak. It just... sits there forevermore.

As to how that makes it seem like less of the intended experience, read the above or the previous couple posts.

If stagnation meant balance, then yes, it would provide less pressure upon our choices, making them each potentially valid. The only demerit of such would be a less shared experience and longer queue times as players are less funneled into each other. Of course, those demerits are basically the only reason the devs would direct our actions in the first place. Thus, we should aim to strike a balance between the two based on our current player populations. (Of course, those funnels could probably be made more effective, too, by changes to our queue system.)

On the other hand, it's true that if every content gives the same reward, you can favor the content that is more efficient, but again that is your choice. If every content gives the same reward, you can still make the choice to do the content that you prefer and sacrifice some efficiency while still working toward the same reward.

If all content gives the same reward, no one is more efficient than the others. Reward, to anyone seeking its accumulation, takes into account the time spent achieving it. A piece of content is more rewarding when it provides the most over the time spent in and in preparation for it, not just per run; the last is generally irrelevant.

Yes, of course one can choose a less efficient choice. But as the disparity between, say, leveling content options increases in a game that increasingly signals to players that it doesn't really start until endgame, that choice is increasingly pressured. That's why the how much is so important. A difference, say, of 3% is going to the affect the decisions of more players than would 0.3%, and 30% far more than the 3%.

[PyurBlue]

There is always a most efficient way of achieving a goal. Flexibility means you can sacrifice that efficiency if you value other things and it won't be such a detriment to your goal. If you want the most efficient method, then of course you've limited yourself to whatever is the most efficient method available.

If there is a most efficient method to do something, there is at least one. There is nothing limiting the number of solutions to one though. FF14 leveling is a good example. Leveling through roulettes is only efficient because of the "artificial" daily bonus. If that didn't exist, leveling a little every day would be as efficient as leveling in chunks every few days. A player aiming for efficiency would have a choice to make. Right now we don't. This is what makes roulettes restrictive.

Again, the reason I posed the question about roulettes, and how much systems should condition their players towards particular choices in the duration and locations of their playtime, is that as the game is increasingly streamlined, efficiency increasingly takes priority over engagement. We see this in the developers' designs and that does trickle down into player and community perceptions as to the shape and therefore intent of the game. (They then make requests for efficiency over engagement in ways that are easier for the devs to meet than requests for engagement over efficiency, and the feedback loop spirals on.)

This is a very good point, I feel the same at times. Requesting improved QoL is valid, but some suggestions just seem to be about streamlining the process of logging in, doing your allotted tasks, and then logging out.

[linay]

...

Ok, I think I understand more about your position, though I still disagree with it. For one, all the things that you say make the dungeons more relevant (relic quest/wondrous tail), I would still prefer to do them in the current dungeon structure rather than what ARR had. For another, experiences may vary, but for me, the current roulette system is sufficient to bring life to old content and add variety (though I won't necessarily oppose for making even more use of them). But I also look at it from a story perspective. Yes, running the same dungeon again is fine (I do it every day with roulette), but I'm also not opposed to content being just a stepping stone because that's how it works in the narrative. (That's why I do appreciate it when we do get to revisit a fight/location in the narrative that differentiates between the two encounters, such as normal vs hard mode trials/dungeons in ARR).

If there is a most efficient method to do something, there is at least one. There is nothing limiting the number of solutions to one though. FF14 leveling is a good example. Leveling through roulettes is only efficient because of the "artificial" daily bonus. If that didn't exist, leveling a little every day would be as efficient as leveling in chunks every few days. A player aiming for efficiency would have a choice to make. Right now we don't. This is what makes roulettes restrictive.

The choice is entirely your own. You don't have to choose the most efficient method if it's not how you want to spend your time. It may be efficient in exp/time, but there are other criteria by which you can value your time. For example, many people suggest deep dungeon as a fast way of leveling, especially for DPS like me. I am ok with running deep dungeon, but it's not my type of content, so I choose not to do it for leveling and only do it if I want something from it (other than exp) or if I am joining other people.

[PyurBlue]

The choice is entirely your own. You don't have to choose the most efficient method if it's not how you want to spend your time.

Unless what you want to spend time on has leveling as a prerequisite. One of the goals for me is to have more end game content (more capped jobs to play). This involves leveling. I could choose to not level efficiently, but then that just pushes the end goal further away. If running content directly provided the same XP as daily roulettes I'd have more ways of reaching the same level of efficiency, which I'd prefer.

It may be efficient in exp/time, but there are other criteria by which you can value your time. For example, many people suggest deep dungeon as a fast way of leveling, especially for DPS like me. I am ok with running deep dungeon, but it's not my type of content, so I choose not to do it for leveling and only do it if I want something from it (other than exp) or if I am joining other people.

That's true, XP/time isn't the only metric of value but you do have to take it into account if you want to do anything that has a level requirement. Most of the game has such requirements. While I don't have to level, there wouldn't be any point to playing if I didn't because I wouldn't be able to do anything I enjoyed.

[linay]

Unless what you want to spend time on has leveling as a prerequisite. One of the goals for me is to have more end game content (more capped jobs to play). This involves leveling. I could choose to not level efficiently, but then that just pushes the end goal further away. If running content directly provided the same XP as daily roulettes I'd have more ways of reaching the same level of efficiency, which I'd prefer.


That's true, XP/time isn't the only metric of value but you do have to take it into account if you want to do anything that has a level requirement. Most of the game has such requirements. While I don't have to level, there wouldn't be any point to playing if I didn't because I wouldn't be able to do anything I enjoyed.

And that's why end game content is time gated, so choosing the most efficient method isn't necessary unless you're just behind. And once you're caught up, you can remain that way without having to choose the most efficient way. But again, that's your choice to want to get to endgame faster.

EDIT: You know, maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. If you just want to get to endgame, then go do the roulette and spam the highest dungeon or do deep dungeon and run fate/hunt while queueing or do MSQ if you have it. You can get to max level in a day. Don't complain about the method since you're not time gated at all from leveling.