[Request] Add alternative methods to getting old Feast rewards

[Awha]

Snip. . .

It is okay for you to have your opinion on the matter, not taking that away. At the core you saying if someone cheats or has an easier time and gets the same rewards as you in devalues the accomplishment. That is the issue I have, you are not saying it devalues it on a personal level, your claim is that it straight up devalues the item. Which is not true, since everyone places the value differently. Does that make more sense? Not saying what you are saying is not true for you, I am saying it may not be true for everyone.

[Aviars]

Does it make sense if you increase the number of Lamborghini's that they become less rare and valuable? Like a common corolla?

Also in this case if you directly make it cost less, aka make it easier to get top 100 rewards that also directly devalues it.

[MeganLynn]

Does it make sense if you increase the number of Lamborghini's that they become less rare and valuable? Like a common corolla?

Also in this case if you directly make it cost less, aka make it easier to get top 100 rewards that also directly devalues it.

/facepalm
To compare real life things to achievements in a video game tells you everything you need to know about this guy.
No use being here anymore. Take care and have a good day, every one.

[Aviars]

/facepalm
To compare real life things to achievements in a video game tells you everything you need to know about this guy.
No use being here anymore. Take care and have a good day, every one.

I'm still excited that you suggested that bronze players should get top 500 badges in Overwatch for not being top 500. Thank you for the input.

Also, Awha was making a claim about material value, there is nothing wrong with making a comparison of material value to a example in real life. Have a nice day ;]

Edit: Also ironic that you were the one making a ad hominem claiming people who disagree with you have no irl accomplishments..... haha

[Awha]

Does it make sense if you increase the number of Lamborghini's that they become less rare and valuable? Like a common corolla?

Also in this case if you directly make it cost less, aka make it easier to get top 100 rewards that also directly devalues it.

I will say this if I worked my ass off for a Lamborghini Aventador, and then one day they go on sale for 5 bucks. I still have the car and you can be sure I will be enjoying that car no matter how common they became. I mean I would hold off on driving it for a month or so to avoid people crashing into mine.

For you it is different, which is fine. You see what I am saying? You feel one way by a change, I feel another. Context also matters, that is why I try to avoid irl examples, I just brought up my irl view point to humor you, most people will not bother to humor such comparisons. I get what you are doing with the hypothetical situations.

[Aviars]

I will say this if I worked my ass off for a Lamborghini Aventador, and then one day they go on sale for 5 bucks. I still have the car and you can be sure I will be enjoying that car no matter how common they became. For you it is different, which is fine. You see what I am saying? You feel one way by a change, I feel another. Everyone has their own feelings so one cannot say. Context also matters, that is why I try to avoid irl examples, I just brought up my irl view point so humor you, most people will not bother to humor such comparisons. I get what you are doing with the hypothetical situations.

At this point what you feel about it doesn't matter. You made a claim that making it available to everyone doesn't lower its value in some way when it actually does. Which you so aptly admitted just now.


Also like I said to Megan, people that make claims of material value make irl examples relevant. Should I have made a comparison of those in game wool sweaters that cost millions of gil in the beginning compared to now? Is that more valid than what I just said? Pretty much no. they are both good examples of what happens when items become more common, just because one involves real life doesn't somehow make it less relevant than a in game example.

[Awha]

At this point what you feel about it doesn't matter. You made a claim that making it available to everyone doesn't lower its value in some way when it actually does. Which you so aptly admitted just now.


Also like I said to Megan, people that make claims of material value make irl examples relevant. Should I have made a comparison of those in game wool sweaters that cost millions of gil in the beginning compared to now? Is that more valid than what I just said? Pretty much no. they are both good examples of what happens when items become more common, just because one involves real life doesn't somehow make it less relevant than a in game example.

I never said it detracts from my value on my end, I said it detracts on your end which is fine, but why should I care if the value detracts from your end? The ingame example is makes more sense since in a video game people are more aloof with their money and it is easier to come by. With your irl example you are framing it in such a way to focus on someone attachment to value to an object outside of the game. Sure if someone spent over 500k for a car for it to be sold for 5 bucks later the normal reaction for most would be get upset. For some that amount of money would take 10 years to earn. In a game where you can make 5 million gil in a weekend same situation sort of does not hold imo. I get what you are trying to do with the hypothetical, and even in your example I never admitted that I would personal my value of the car would be lessened if more people hand it. I did say you properly would though, and I understand why you would, just as I understand why you would feel slighted if pvp rewards changes.

More or less you are saying because it detracts from your value no one outside the top 100 players should have the item. Which is fine, it is a selfish reason just as those that want the item simply because they want said item is selfish. So what makes your selfish desire more valid over another?

[Aviars]

I never said it detracts from my value on my end

Hundreds of thousands of dollars versus $5. Ya, apparently you didn't lose value there.

The ingame example is makes more sense since in a video game people are more aloof with their money and it is easier to come by. With your irl example you are framing it in such a way to focus on someone attachment to value to an object outside of the game. Sure if someone spent over 500k for a car for it to be sold for 5 bucks later the normal reaction for most would be get upset. For some that amount of money would take 10 years to earn. I get what you are trying to do with the hypothetical, and even in your example I never admitted that I would personal my value of the car would be lessened if more people hand it. I did say you properly would though, and I understand why you would, just as I understand why you would feel slighted if pvp rewards changes.

I am only talking about materialistic value. What you feel about it doesn't matter. Value was lost. There is no difference in that regard between the wool sweater in game to the cars irl. The example was referring to monetary value. You made the claim that the mounts and glamour would not lose any hard value, and this proves you wrong.

[Rogatum]

@Aviars, Since no one has asked you, why do you want the items to remain locked behind top 100?

Well, things got a little heated over the past few pages, but I'll just continue on from here about my main post;

Personally speaking I think the best way to re-implement the old mounts/glamours/etc is by making them (or a variation thereof) exclusively wolf collars, possibly requiring several seasons to obtain (so you can't do a one and done type thing). This way players will be encouraged to continue participating in Feast without feeling the pressure to try and reach top 100 and without losing the overall value of the mount.

As far as trophies could go...they could make a generalized participation trophy, but it wouldn't make sense to hand out specific "#1" trophies.

I agree that is a fair system, It does not address the points Aviars brought up as to why they feel the rewards should remain top 100 exclusive. Which are;

People should have to achieve top 100 for top 100 rewards. Plain and simple.

Going based off of that, no compromise that does not require achieving top 100 would be fair. Which does seem fair, as does your suggestion.

@Aviars Out of morbid curiosity say I did say "Yes" to your question, how is that wrong? Leaving emotion outside as much possible.

Trying to save on posts.

[Cidel]

Oh look, another thread about old Feast rewards predictably attracted the usual biggest rebutter on the topic like Batman to the bat-signal. That didn't take very long.

Highly suggest people just don't engage directly, say your piece, "like" what you agree with, and move on. The "discussion" will probably end up going on for pages on end with various strawman arguments, passive-aggressive assertions and thinly-veiled ad hominems thrown around. Seen it happen enough times to know, and its already happening again.