Quote Originally Posted by Reinhardt_Azureheim View Post
BG3 is a better game and playing experience for most players than Crystalline Conflict in general,. BG3 is also not an MMORPG with public character progression - apples and oranges my dude. A better comparison would be World of Warcraft in general.

Also congrats, you are one of few players that are considered outliers in a statistic, glad for you that you aren't driven by rewards - it doesn't change the fact that many more aren't like you and I think you'd tell me a lie if you said you wouldn't find it nice if there was a reward for doing something you already like.

Yes the mode wasnt great - the point is, rewards drive incentive and if you can choose "activity A" or "activity B, which is just like A, but more stressful/annoying for little reason". most players will opt for activity A.
( I'm not your dude )

So because it's not a MMO by this arbitrary filter it shouldn't be comparable? What makes you think this drives an impassable wedge between both then? Judged purely on an engagement perspective, people go play games without any rewards behind more often than not, if just steam achievements. One could argue that a solo player game which has a finite game session unlike a MMO makes this different by this fact alone, which is true, but you get players that keep restarting it over and over even though it becomes a repeat because they still do find engagement in it for nothing. They want to experience different paths, they want to try them in honour mode too, could be anything. And maybe they'll come back to it in one year after not touching it for other things. I still find amusing that you consider BG3 a batter game and playing experience than CC. Perhaps then SE should strive and make their own game a better game and retain players from other things than just low hanging carrots?

When it comes to multiplayer games that actually don't have a finite session lifetime however, that difference can't even be made and I find interesting that you only chose to address the BG3 example and not the other one. Ranked players just play ranked, and even in the case of LoL, I do believe that past a point they have unlocked most stuff right? I'm not very familiar with Mobas, but do they only play for skins once they have all their heroes? Or do they play to try and go higher in ranks regardless of what they have to gain out of it? The latter is definitely the case for many multiplayer online games. They just get a neat placement at the end of the season and that's it, and they go again for the next one. They engage with the content because the content engages them and don't need a carrot to keep engaging.

You're telling me that i'm an outlier, I counter with that I'm perhaps an outlier in this very specific MMO format because MMO players are absolutely weird, but I'd argue that no in fact, it's the MMO players that are the outliers when it comes to competitive multiplayer game engagement.

Another real reason why ranked has trouble going off is because the population it reaches and attracts is way too inbred and small. Even on multiplayer games of which it's the core purpose and gameplay and not considered a side activity, they actually have about 70% or above the active player base only engaging with the co-op SC2 modes for example, and within the remainder there is a big chunk that also only touches unranked as well. That's the reality of MMO ranked pvp, it's way too niche to keep the fire burning on its own and rewards are the usual bait to ensure it does at least a little.

I specifically said that the cookiee was nice on top of it, but that's about it. I'm not masochistic enough to keep playing something I don't enjoy just because there is rewards. I find it even a little toxic as an attitude to have.