The Expert roulette design is extremely bad

[Shurrikhan]

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.

[Denji]

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.

[Shurrikhan]

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.

[Denji]

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.

[Shurrikhan]

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.