account share epic past life

[Avantasian]

When you cite positives but not negatives, your posts are biased.

We are asking you to be unbiased in your posts, and in the discussion, by admitting negatives.

Saying you are unbiased (that you have no agenda) while posting in a biased manner does not make you unbiased.

I look forward to your posts on why too many shared rewards can also be a negative.

What bias? Throughout the entire thread I have been advocating finding the middle ground. That explicitly means that I don't want it to go too far in the BTA direction.

[nokowi]

What bias? Throughout the entire thread I have been advocating finding the middle ground. That explicitly means that I don't want it to go too far in the BTA direction.

The bias where you wont list negatives, ask others to do so, and then ignore them.

Read page 1 of the thread and see if anybody said anything that would make shared RXP bad, in their opinion.

Tell us why we are this far in the thread and you act as if nobody has said any negatives.

You have a responsibility to read the entire thread after demanding the same from others.

[Avantasian]

You should try to answer this question yourself. If you can't come up with any negatives (some of them already posted in the thread), you are in fact biased and have an agenda.

You calling me biased and claiming that I have an "agenda" (what ever that means) does not make it so.
I am convinced after following the discussion for over a month, I'll give you that, but I'm not biased.

Please explain what you believe my bias is exactly, and how it relates to my playstyle etc.

I already said you need to show why more is better (and specifically why RXP is the best choice) instead of this type of response, which is just hiding behind all or none statements.

The fact that you didn't take the idea to 11 doesn't mean that taking it to 6 or 7 is good.

I have already done that.

Reading failure. I told you to stop trying to get 100% of reaper on your toons, which would allow you to play your alts.

You haven't even looked at what rewards you can get with your preferences. You look at the very last reward, and if that is too far away you don't even see the rewards sitting right in front of you, consistent with your own preferences.

You continue to demonstrate a failure of logic by demanding your alt get 100% of reaper.

I don't want to stop climbing up the reaper trees. I have already told you that I play a game that is based on min/maxing and character progression because I like min/maxing and character progression. That people are abandoning alts to focus on their main confirms that I am not alone (real shock, huh). You need to drop the idea that people are just "doing it wrong" and that you know how they can maximize their enjoyment better.

[nokowi]

You calling me biased and claiming that I have an "agenda" (what ever that means) does not make it so.
I am convinced after following the discussion for over a month, I'll give you that, but I'm not biased.

When you list the positives but can't or won't list the negatives of a change, you are biased. When you are asked to do so as part of a discussion, and you fail to respond, you are biased. When players list negatives of shared RXP, and you only talk about the positives, you are biased.

Have you ever seen a politician talk only about the positive things that happened during their administration? Listing only positives is a textbook sign of bias.

A non-biased opinion would list the positives and negatives, even the ones that hurt ones preferred change.

Hiding behind the idea that you have no biases with respect to this thread is quite humorous.

If you tried to be unbiased, you failed.

I have already told you that I play a game that is based on min/maxing and character progression because I like min/maxing and character progression.

So what we see from you is the push for shared RXP is about every character needing to have everything rather than a desire to be rewarded for playing alts.

You are exactly the type of player that the game can not be designed around without hurting other peoples preferences.

You think 4000 hours is too much, but someone else with the same preference as you thinks 1000 hours is too much. Someone else likes to min/max and plays 12 hours a week, but only 3 hours of those involve leveling. They want 12 toons fully maxed at 3 hours a week, because they like alts.

Bowing to your min/max preference for RXP either means that shared resources needs to happen everywhere (to meet the preference of all min/maxers), or that you are allowed to min/max while others with the same preference are not.

[nokowi]

I have already done that.

Show me the post where you listed positives and negatives of shared RXP, where you showed that there is a need to have more shared resources, and that RXP was a better choice than other shared options.

[Avantasian]

When you list the positives but can't or won't list the negatives of a change, you are biased. When you are asked to do so as part of a discussion, and you fail to respond, you are biased. When players list negatives of shared RXP, and you only talk about the positives, you are biased.

Have you ever seen a politician talk only about the positive things that happened during their administration? Listing only positives is a textbook sign of bias.

A non-biased opinion would list the positives and negatives, even the ones that hurt ones preferred change.

Hiding behind the idea that you have no biases with respect to this thread is quite humorous.

If you tried to be unbiased, you failed.

To quote my very first post in this thread: You are free to disagree with the benefits of account wide RXP.
There is no bias. I am simply not that interested in discussing the merits of any specific change when people are still making statements in the line of

You should not have asked for account wide RXP if you don't support the same for every other aspect of the game.

and

Account wide is one of the worst forum ideas I have seen

[Avantasian]

So what we see from you is the push for shared RXP is about every character needing to have everything rather than a desire to be rewarded for playing alts.

No. That is factually incorrect at every level.

You are exactly the type of player that the game can not be designed around without hurting other peoples preferences.

You think 4000 hours is too much, but someone else with the same preference as you thinks 1000 hours is too much. Someone else likes to min/max and plays 12 hours a week, but only 3 hours of those involve leveling. They want 12 toons fully maxed at 3 hours a week, because they like alts.

I think 4000 hours is too much for what now?

You are also missing the entire point.
I am not demanding the game to be changed so that I can fully max out X number of characters. I will likely never max out even a single character and if I start playing alts I will be even further from that even if I get what I want here, so that is simply not my motivation at all. Drop that idea, it is simply wrong.

I am asking for a change because I see that a whole bunch of people are abandoning their alts and I can see why they are doing so. The result of the change is not to for anyone to reach their goals faster, but to have alts to actually be included in their goals at all. This is important for you to understand. You flail at me for not talking specifics when you don't even understand my goals and motivations. I have learned from experience that jumping into specifics is pointless if the basics are not cleared up first.

[Chai]

If you believe I disagree then please link the post that makes you believe that. Clearly something is not getting through and I do want to improve.

So you agree then, and understand why SSG, like other MMOs, have 1-2 account level progression systems, with the majority of systems still being character bound, and this pattern throughout the MMO industry is likely for the specific reasons outlined earlier on in the thread.

Great. Have a nice day. /waves

[Avantasian]

So you agree then, and understand why SSG, like other MMOs, have 1-2 account level progression systems, with the majority of systems still being character bound, and this pattern throughout the MMO industry is likely for the specific reasons outlined earlier on in the thread.

Great. Have a nice day. /waves

While the "1-2" are completely arbitrary numbers that mean nothing to me, I do agree with the principle it's exactly what I've been arguing for the entire thread.
Glad you see it too! /waves

[nokowi]

I am asking for a change because I see that a whole bunch of people are abandoning their alts and I can see why they are doing so. The result of the change is not to for anyone to reach their goals faster, but to have alts to actually be included in their goals at all. This is important for you to understand. You flail at me for not talking specifics when you don't even understand my goals and motivations. I have learned from experience that jumping into specifics is pointless if the basics are not cleared up first.

I don't think your argument is around your concern for others.

You spent a good deal of time in this thread willfully and repeatedly ignoring the statements of others and pretending they didn't exist.

The majority of players voted against account wide RXP.

If you were concerned for others, you would spend time trying to find a better alt solution without shared RXP, rather than ignoring anything outside of the change that you want.

It seems to me that you want a change because you only play maxxed out toons.

You seem to think you are representative of everyone in the game, and you are not.

Players will return to alts once they get their fix of RXP on their main(s).

You act like new content is played the same way as 2 year old content, which is completely false.

Dev's need to wait at least a year, and look at data, before they even consider any of your ideas.

Any decisions should be based on observing player behavior when there is significant new content (where players have traditionally used alts), and after reaper is no longer shiny and new.

[Livmo]

Would this thread exist if Reaper Mode ever came to be?

Perhaps some folks things the way they are and would rather have developer times spent on other things instead of this type of sharing?

I say no, because I want time spent on other things like bug fixing, continuing the Class Enhancement passes. With all the game changes, or if you prefer nerfs, my poor pure arty is feeling left very far behind in epics. Arty is supposed to be a premium class. Dog needs work too. Developer times cost $. Working on X can mean delaying other things or not having new content to play, etc.

Forget this jive and just ask for pay to play Reaper Boxes.

[Avantasian]

I don't think your argument is around your concern for others.

You spent a good deal of time in this thread willfully and repeatedly ignoring the statements of others and pretending they didn't exist.

The majority of players voted against account wide RXP.

If you were concerned for others, you would spend time trying to find a better alt solution without shared RXP, rather than ignoring anything outside of the change that you want.

It seems to me that you want a change because you only play maxxed out toons.

You seem to think you are representative of everyone in the game, and you are not.

Players will return to alts once they get their fix of RXP on their main(s).

You act like new content is played the same way as 2 year old content, which is completely false.

Dev's need to wait at least a year, and look at data, before they even consider any of your ideas.

Any decisions should be based on observing player behavior when there is significant new content (where players have traditionally used alts), and after reaper is no longer shiny and new.

I don't know what to tell you, you are simply wrong. You have created an image of me and my motivations that is simply not even close to real, and you are viewing my posts through that lense.
Your constant personal attacks and derailments are tiersome.

I will repeat the simple point I've been trying to get across one more time:
Having some system requiring a specific character and some allowing shared best meets everyone's preferences. We just had a huge addition to the character specific side, and with that lots of threads and posts popped up saying that they are abandoning their alts. That lead me to the conclusion that we have are too far from the optimal point in terms of character specific vs shared.

/waves

[slarden]

Having some system requiring a specific character and some allowing shared best meets everyone's preferences.

So it meets EVERYONE'S preferences does it? Certainly not based on any of these threads or the recent poll

https://www.ddo.com/forums/poll.php?pollid=175&do=showresults

This effort would replace other work that the devs would be doing and the large # of people that don't support the idea would lose that and instead get easiness they didn't request and didn't want. Why would the devs spend so much time on an effort that is likely to disappoint as many people as it would please.

[Chai]

While the "1-2" are completely arbitrary numbers that mean nothing to me, I do agree with the principle it's exactly what I've been arguing for the entire thread.
Glad you see it too! /waves

1-2 is not a completely arbitrary number however. Its a pattern among many MMOs.

We can already see how "too much grind" is used to monetize the game, by enticing people to buy their way past it, but how does lowering the grind cause more revenue to come in. Even if it means more player retention, those players playing through the now lessened grind rather than paying through it doesnt equate to more revenue generation. Personally Id rather see more players, but the company has to look at it in terms of revenue generation.

[Gremmlynn]

Say level 2 on your alt required 4000000000 experience. There would be a way to achieve it, but does that really mean that optimal? If it was lowered to 4000 experience you don't think more people would try to go for it?

There would be more than enough to do on your main and alts after some of the grind is made account wide for the argument that people would run out of things to do to be true. It's not reasonable to expect that people will play more and pay more in a longer grind than in a shorter grind if the shorter grind is still long enough to keep players playing and paying for the desired amount of time.
Creating huge apparent barriers to alts serves no purpose. In the end all it will do is hurt variety.

I'm saying it could be an endless grind and the situation would be the same as far as I'm concerned. How big the potential grind is shouldn't make any difference. Simply play how you want to play. If that's one character do that. If it's alts, as it is for me, then play alts. Worrying about where you are on a hamster wheel is mostly pointless, simply concentrate on taking the next step, whatever that may be, on whichever character you happen to be playing at the time.

The only way what we have hurts variety is if one is unwilling to play a character unless it no longer has much reason to be played. In which case SSG would be happy to sell that situation to them.

[Avantasian]

1-2 is not a completely arbitrary number however. Its a pattern among many MMOs.

We can already see how "too much grind" is used to monetize the game, by enticing people to buy their way past it, but how does lowering the grind cause more revenue to come in. Even if it means more player retention, those players playing through the now lessened grind rather than paying through it doesnt equate to more revenue generation. Personally Id rather see more players, but the company has to look at it in terms of revenue generation.

I'm not taking your word for "1-2 systems per MMO" and frankly the number of systems means little without knowing the extent of the systems.

As for the monetization the idea is that the result of the change is not to for anyone to reach their goals faster, but to have alts to actually be included in their goals at all. That is an important distinction.

[Avantasian]

I'm saying it could be an endless grind and the situation would be the same as far as I'm concerned. How big the potential grind is shouldn't make any difference. Simply play how you want to play. If that's one character do that. If it's alts, as it is for me, then play alts. Worrying about where you are on a hamster wheel is mostly pointless, simply concentrate on taking the next step, whatever that may be, on whichever character you happen to be playing at the time.

The only way what we have hurts variety is if one is unwilling to play a character unless it no longer has much reason to be played. In which case SSG would be happy to sell that situation to them.

That people have stopped playing alts and thus their variety has been hurt thanks to a too large character specific grind is a fact. Ignore it or dissmiss it as a "player problem" if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it has negative consequences in the game.

[Avantasian]

So it meets EVERYONE'S preferences does it? Certainly not based on any of these threads or the recent poll.

Best meet everyones preferences. It seems pointless to have a discussion with someone who intentionally or not leaves out words from my statements, but whatever.
Also, what you quoted had nothing to do with that poll, as I said nothing about any specific change.
If what I said is false it must mean that somehow all BTA systems are inherently bad, and that it's best for the game if all loot became BTC.

[Qhualor]

That people have stopped playing alts and thus their variety has been hurt thanks to a too large character specific grind is a fact. Ignore it or dissmiss it as a "player problem" if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it has negative consequences in the game.

It's important to point out that these playes are the ones choosing not to play alts and than asking or suggesting the game change for them because of their choice. They would rather blame the game than blame themselves.

[Avantasian]

It's important to point out that these playes are the ones choosing not to play alts and than asking or suggesting the game change for them because of their choice. They would rather blame the game than blame themselves.

Ignore it or dissmiss it as a "player problem" if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it has negative consequences in the game.