Group A (>80%): "I want to be able to do at least X, Y, and Z (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of all three)."
Group B (<20%): "I want to be able to do at least X and Y (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of both)."
Regardless of their portion, unless Group B also classifies itself by "I want to prevent anything more than X and Y from being possible", the reasonable solution is to just allow for all the requested features.
Again, making it so that doing just X performs as well as X and Y creates imbalances across all jobs; short of that, there is no difference in gameplay between having access to both X and Y and being able to clear off just X but able to further carry with Y vs. playing a job that can only do X and can clear with just X but lacks that excess margin for using Y as well. You're still getting the same throughput for your effort, and you don't need to use any more of the kit than you want to since only the part/optimizations you're used to using would be required to clear.It's similar to if, in a semester-length easy course that only takes 10 weeks to ace all of the course's meeting and assignments, Group B wanted the final projects to be due at week 10 while Group A wanted things to be due only at the final week so they could do more involved final projects, even though the actual requirements for said projects would still be identical and the students would be able to turn those projects in as soon as they want and immediately thereafter get their final grade if they like. Given that the standards are already set and static, there is zero harm in allowing for those extra weeks so that people are free to try unnecessarily harder and thereby engage more with that experience if they so please.



Reply With Quote

