[Request] Add alternative methods to getting old Feast rewards

[oLLiCS]

Snip.

Since you're on Chaos I will only speak about Chaos. We had one rank seller that tried to get one account on the board last season and that guy didn't even place Top100 in the end. Where are the cheaters? I have yet to experience one and I played 6 out of 8 seasons. If you mean wintraders then yes but even those can be counted on the fingers of one hand and are in the lower tier. Throwers? Yes and again there's like only 2 who threw on purpose because of personal issues with someone in the same team. I hope you're not mixing up throwers with some unranked/bronze people who just go into Feast to farm wolf marks (which is an issue imo).

Spamming matches does not help you to get a higher rating. It does on paper but reality is it won't get you anywhere - exceptions prove the rule.

I agree with you on the "sit on a rating" last seasons but you still saw many people going minus and plus in points. The current season is quite different tho. You don't see people going minus because SE changed what the leaderboard shows. Only your highest rating is shown on the leaderboard atm. That doesn't mean people aren't playing tho. Jump into WPD Discord or check out streams at peak times (if you don't want to queue or aren't on a higher tier) and you will see the majority is playing alot. No one is blocking the queue by not queuing.

Going by the leaderboard as of right now [24.06.2018 02:45am] I can tell you there's only one alt in Top100.

[Alleo]

Since you're on Chaos I will only speak about Chaos. We had one rank seller that tried to get one account on the board last season and that guy didn't even place Top100 in the end. Where are the cheaters? I have yet to experience one and I played 6 out of 8 seasons. If you mean wintraders then yes but even those can be counted on the fingers of one hand and are in the lower tier. Throwers? Yes and again there's like only 2 who threw on purpose because of personal issues with someone in the same team. I hope you're not mixing up throwers with some unranked/bronze people who just go into Feast to farm wolf marks (which is an issue imo).

I am talking about the whole of FF14 not only chaos. And there is at least one big european FC that sells high ranks and even has some of their member saying in a video that they are using cheats in PVP. I mean there is a thread in the PVP forum that exactly talks about the problem and that it seemingly got even worse. And there is a post on reddit that also talks about this.

I am not saying that 50% or something of the top ranks are cheating, but as long as even a couple of cheaters exist, as long as rank decay exist and as long as some people putting their alts in the rank..you cant call it a competition. Because every single one of those are people that are taking highly limited mounts away.

[Stormfur]

Just because it isn't "as much" of a problem on one data center doesn't mean it isn't absolutely endemic on others.

[Nerini]

At least the contest rewards are the same things made available through different events. Sometimes drawings...sometimes screenshots...sometimes poems or stories. That would be like making pvp rewards available through pvp, but also gold saucer, front lines, potd and so on.

So I can get the wit scarf chocobo barding and the gaelicat hat ingame? Maybe the legacy mark too one day.

[Magic-Mal]

So I can get the wit scarf chocobo barding and the gaelicat hat ingame? Maybe the legacy mark too one day.

You can't get them in-game no.. but you do have a chance to get them with every single contest. Unlike Feast rewards.

[Rockette]

You can't get them in-game no.. but you do have a chance to get them with every single contest. Unlike Feast rewards.

If you're American or *sometimes* EU.

...which not all of us are :<

[Rogatum]

If me telling you your question had conflicting statements and didn't make sense, then there isn't much I can do. Telling people they are wrong I guess is combative?

Regardless of that, you stating something is wrong is inserting feeling. If something is wrong then you feel that it is wrong. And yes, SE has made it abundantly clear that these rewards are exclusive to top 100 players and time exclusive through numerous blogs and announcements and is still true to this very day.

Also, I find your questions rather rhetorical. Would breaking a promise be wrong? I think we both know the answer to that question.

You can view something is wrong without it being based in emotion. As in this example SE made an agreement or set a precedent with the PvP community regarding the rewards. I would agree due to current agreement any change would be wrong. Now the question remains do you feel SE is within their right to change or alter the agreement? I do think that if SE were to restructure how rewards are distributed in PvP it should be for future rewards only and not past rewards since that goes against the agreement / precedent they established before in the previous seasons. The question itself has very little with them breaking a promise more so do you think SE is within their rights to altar the agreement for future seasons.

If that is what you are saying then if SE does not want to move forward with top 100 rewards in the future while keeping the past items restricted like they said, then I wouldn't have a issue with that beyond lamenting over the fact that they got rid of a system that rewards skill. As long as past rewards are treated as they were claimed to be treated that is fine.

So we are in agreement that SE has the right to alter how they distribute rewards for future seasons, as long they they adhere to the agreement from the previous seasons and do not make the rewards mentioned that would only be awarded to those whom were able to obtain top 100 available to non top 100 players? Would it be safe to assume that altered versions of previous season rewards would be fair game if SE were to change they way rewards were handled? Being as they are not the same reward.

Realizing something is wrong requires you to have empathy for those who are wronged and you also feeling wronged when it happens to you.

I do not agree with this, I do not believe one needs empathy to understand an action is wrong. I understand breaking the law is wrong in the sense that it is not my best interest to break them. Empathy plays no role it is more so an act of self preservation.

Then I could easily tell you the same thing. You don't understand and are wrong. Also why would I ask you anything if I think I am right? That doesn't make sense, you are claiming a high ground on a foundation that does not make sense.

My social skills are lacking, normally when having a discussion with someone if there is confusion as to what is being said it leads to potential hostile exchanges. So I was shown if I do not understand something someone is saying asking them to explain instead of being combative leads more positive result and fosters a healthier discussion. Since miscommunication is often a primary reason for a misunderstanding. Going based off the comment regarding the high ground I guess this misunderstanding in this moment just boils down to that fact you feel this is a debate and I view this as a discussion. That is why I removed those parts from my post, was never my intention to get into a debate with you, just to gain understanding. At the start I was hostile, but watching the thread I figured all the hostility would simply halt the discussion, which would be a shame since the topic in my opinion does open up interesting avenues of conversation.

Edited out some empty platitudes.

[Aviars]

Saying someone is wrong because you do not understand is combative, you could have easily asked me to explain further if you did not understand my question

Then I could easily tell you the same thing. You don't understand and are wrong. Also why would I ask you anything if I think I am right? That doesn't make sense, you are claiming a high ground on a foundation that does not make sense.

Right and wrong does not always go together with emotion. You can view something is wrong without it being based on emotion.

Realizing something is wrong requires you to have empathy for those who are wronged and you also feeling wronged when it happens to you.

I would agree due to current agreement any change would be wrong.

Great you actually agree with me on the matter. If you agree that it is wrong then why even argue this point about emotion?

Now the question remains which you do you feel SE is within their right to change or alter the agreement? I do think that if SE were to restructure how rewards are distributed in PvP it should be for future rewards only and not past rewards since that goes against the agreement / precedent they established before in the previous seasons.

If that is what you are saying then if SE does not want to move forward with top 100 rewards in the future while keeping the past items restricted like they said, then I wouldn't have a issue with that beyond lamenting over the fact that they got rid of a system that rewards skill. As long as past rewards are treated as they were claimed to be treated that is fine.

To your previous question on if they can alter the agreement for past items, absolutely not.

Feelings has very little to do with something when an agreement is broken.

They aren't breaking a agreement if they change it for future seasons, if they remove the option for future top 100 rewards then they are just changing the system. Breaking a agreement for past rewards is different and would be breaking a promise that has already been in effect and should be enforced.

Would it be safe to assume that altered versions of previous season rewards would be fair game if SE were to change they way rewards were handled? Being as they are not the same reward.

Nope. You seem to have a different view on what is different or not. You should leave it at that.

I do not agree with this, I do not believe one needs empathy to understand an action is wrong. I understand breaking the law is wrong in the sense that it is not my best interest to break them. Empathy plays no role it is more so an act of self preservation.

Understanding the concept of wrong in the first place requires you to feel and have emotion in the first place.

Definition of Wrong:

unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

To understand wrong you have to feel that way. Immorality is based on feeling. If you don't feel then you can't understand the concept of wronging other people.

My social skills are lacking, normally when having a discussion with someone if there is confusion as to what is being said it leads to potential hostile exchanges. So I was shown if I do not understand something someone is saying asking them to explain instead of being combative leads more positive result and fosters a healthier discussion. Since miscommunication is often a primary reason for a misunderstanding. Going based off the comment regarding the high ground I guess this misunderstanding in this moment just boils down to that fact you feel this is a debate and I view this as a discussion. That is why I removed those parts from my post, was never my intention to get into a debate with you, just to gain understanding. At the start I was hostile, but watching the thread I figured all the hostility would simply halt the discussion, which would be a shame since the topic in my opinion does open up interesting avenues of conversation.

There was no misunderstanding. You equate saying someone is wrong with being combative. You also claimed that I did not understand and that I should ask you to explain because you think you are right.

Anyways here is the definition of debate

1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

I mean if you want to split hairs over whether it is a debate or discussion, they are the same thing, at least in this case you have a opposing viewpoint towards me, it is a debate whether you like it or not. If you want a true discussion then find someone who agrees with you on every single point. There is nothing more to say about this.

I also will say this, I won't be responding to you if you edit your past post to respond beyond this point. If you can't make a new post and in so doing make it clear you are responding to a new post of mine then I won't debate/discuss with you further. Have a nice day.

[Reinha]

They aren't breaking a agreement if they change it for future seasons, if they remove the option for future top 100 rewards then they are just changing the system. Breaking a agreement for past rewards is different and would be breaking a promise that has already been in effect and should be enforced.

Would you consider it breaking a promise if they recolored or reskinned some older top 100 rewards and made those recolors/reskins available in some other content? This was mentioned by the OP as one solution and it has happened to many rewards already.

[Gospel]

Would you consider it breaking a promise if they recolored or reskinned some older top 100 rewards and made those recolors/reskins available in some other content? This was mentioned by the OP as one solution and it has happened to many rewards already.

It's not breaking a promise because they never said it to begin with. Not once. Not ever. In terms of Feast rewards they have always been vague. The only thing that we have ever had any info to go by is that they said during live letter around Season 4 when they were asked about it, they mentioned they would cycle in rewards at some point in time. We don't know if that means the recolors every other season like we've been getting or if they literally mean to bring back all the old rewards? There was never a promise they made to players saying they were exclusive or that we'd never see them again.

If anybody can find a direct quote or link to a video of Yoshi or a Developer saying otherwise then I'd love to see it. Maybe then these threads can finally die since everybody will actually officially know S/E's stance on the matter.