Bozja feedback thread

[Shougun]

I whole heartedly disagree, I really don't care that Bozja has other stuff. Eureka did too, and amazingly everything there still gave you progression towards your relic. Bozja is the main content, everything in Bozja is literally based around the relics, their lore, their everything. The zone is there because of the relics. And you're saying the people who refuse to do the main content, should be rewarded for refusing to do it? And the people who do choose to do it should be punished just because it has lock boxes and bozjan clusters that give you more stuff. Lock boxes btw which are also wicked RNG that 9/10 give you absolute garbage. That's your stance? That would be like them giving people an alternative way of getting things for PVP lets say, and making the non pvp way 10x easier. It makes literally 0 sense. I've done Zodiac, I've done Anima, and I did Eureka. And I'm all for giving people a seperate option, but that option shouldn't be superior or better in any way. They made the content for the relic, if you refuse to do it then thats on you. But again, I also don't think the FATE grinding should go back to Atma farming. If you get gold on a FATE outside, you get one. If you get gold on a fate inside you should get one. Thinking thats unreasonable blows my mind.

Not sure how you can't find any sense in the logical argument of the math side of it. If you've got two activities one does two things one does one thing it is natural that there is some sort of difference in them. In every game ever there is an intent to balance activities and their rewards. If you've two levers and they both give the same z reward but one gives the x reward then naturally you'll do the one that gives you both. Now I know you've the added argument on how easy FATEs are and how bad the balance is on the Bozja lever, and I've even agreed the balance is off- but I'm bewildered that you can't fathom a situation where you'd want to make the lever that provides less diversity provides more on what it does actually do.

"But BOZJA IS THE CONTENT". I hear you, but the devs purposefully made an out for players - so you're not arguing with me you're arguing with the devs. Bozja and relic are not bound together like Eureka was. You may not like it, but that is the state of the matter.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to make one lever terrible and another lever superior because in the eyes of SE, at least so I'm arguing, both are very valid levers. Again already agreed Bozja's lever could use some buffs, but there is absolutely logic and reason to that the relic FATE lever is not worse than the Bozja one. Because again, SE determined you don't have to greatly invest into Bozja in order to progress your relic (at least so far). The FATE isn't some charity at this time, it's an entirely valid progression (and Bozja is more like the charity . . . lol, it provides other bonuses but it's way too weak on the relic side for the balance to make sense, once it gets a bit of a buff though I think it would be an entirely fair and balanced relationship).

The issue is your frame of reference is not to what they were doing and so you're having trouble seeing why they did what they did, you're framing that Bozja must be the best way to level relic (in all steps, I'm assuming this is going to flip flop over time) - this is largely based off your personal desires and Eureka. SE clearly doesn't agree at this time. The relationship Eureka and relic had is no longer as strong with Bozja, and that was by intention. Now Relic is Relic which may utalize many different systems for progression, the reward for doing Bozja can be relic but is not limited / exclusive to it. This doesn't mean you're wrong if you don't like what SE intended but that you say there is no logic to attempt to balance the reward and rates out is wrong. It's pretty clear that they entirely and full heartedly intended relic to not need a tight relationship with Bozja grinding, and they've done so, and they've said so- there is absolutely sense in suggestion that the option of just FATEs would have a benefit over the option of lock boxes + FATES. Mathematically in terms of calculating reward, it has pure sense to ensure each option is balanced.

Only getting one reward but faster is fair in comparison to getting two rewards and one of them being exclusive to that content, assuming they buff Bozja's drop rate a bit (as again I'm not defending how low it is, but that there is a superiority to FATEs as it is the one and only thing you really get from doing that.. makes absolute sense). If they disrupted this relationship such that FATEs had a lower or equal efficacy to Bozja meanwhile Bozja also comes with special rewards then it would be obvious that the secondary option was a charity / half hearted imbalanced option because they want to force you to do a specific content. Again your frame of reference is you must be doing Bozja for relic as the best option (including lock boxes makes it the best if they're equal), SE is of the mind that you can absolutely do relic without too much effort in Bozja and have balanced it as such. When you shift your frame to the intention, likely, of their goal the logical is incredibly sound (once you buff Bozja a bit), and if you don't want to shift your frame because you hate it that's fine, there are things I dislike in this game too, but the logic of why there is a difference in this situation exists and is very easy to follow so long as you accept they've no intention to force Bozja or even offer 'half options'.

Lever A gives you 1 apple.
Lever B gives you 1 apple and 2 lemons.

Not balanced. This is what you're saying Bozja has to be otherwise there is "no logic". Even though it's clear SE has come with the intention of not binding relic that tightly to Bozja unlike what they did with Eureka.

Lever A gives you 2 apples.
Lever B gives you 1 apple and 2 lemons.

Depending on value of the lemon this can be a very fair trade. If you've played any board game ever you'll be familiar with this relationship. Now you may prefer the lever be a concession rather than an earnest option (first example is a concession, is not balanced), but the logic is absolutely there to argue for the second example (trade offs).