Return of Reckoning

Fallenkezef wrote:

lefze wrote:

Fallenkezef wrote:
Why? 25 out of evey hundred players is perfectly fine, especialy if you also have to be in your racial zone.

Let's take the 10 medallions you would get from a non-racial zone as the baseline. Do you think 25% of primetime population plays well enough to get maximum/"extra" rewards from a lock? I mean, it's obviously supposed to be a premium, 25% gives a lot of people that don't actually deserve a premium one at random. The fact that it can increase to 20 should make it even harder to get.

Easy for one of the best players with full bis gear to sneer and judge others as inferior.

Luckily we do not have to suffer from the tyrany of the minority judging what is best.

These things are better done by math and not subjective opinions in worthiness snd 25% is a perfectly acceptable amount

Why do people just not see that incentive to improve is the only thing that can save the game? Giving out a relatively huge amount of currency to 25% of players at every lock just promotes playing the lottery, as it's very likely that outside of the 5-10% top contributors it's just random anyways. When getting a premium it should be because you played extraordinarily, not because reasons.

lefze wrote:

Fallenkezef wrote:

lefze wrote:
Let's take the 10 medallions you would get from a non-racial zone as the baseline. Do you think 25% of primetime population plays well enough to get maximum/"extra" rewards from a lock? I mean, it's obviously supposed to be a premium, 25% gives a lot of people that don't actually deserve a premium one at random. The fact that it can increase to 20 should make it even harder to get.

Easy for one of the best players with full bis gear to sneer and judge others as inferior.

Luckily we do not have to suffer from the tyrany of the minority judging what is best.

These things are better done by math and not subjective opinions in worthiness snd 25% is a perfectly acceptable amount

Why do people just not see that incentive to improve is the only thing that can save the game? Giving out a relatively huge amount of currency to 25% of players at every lock just promotes playing the lottery, as it's very likely that outside of the 5-10% top contributors it's just random anyways. When getting a premium it should be because you played extraordinarily, not because reasons.

Your idea gives no incentive to improve, just creates a system where the best stay at top and everyone else gets scraps.

The system had to have an overflow that rewards beyond the core of best players who are already bis and high rr.

It's not about rewarding afks it's about rewarding the people who ARE trying thier best but do not form part of the core who run mini-maxed, well equipped warbands who do not even need those rewards.

So, we are back to group identities; casuals versus 'pros', with apparently no crossover whatsoever, because surely that'd hurt one's favourite schtick revolving around absolutes, one-dimensional arguments and mysterious obstacles.

Darosh wrote:So, we are back to group identities; casuals versus 'pros', with apparently no crossover whatsoever, because surely that'd hurt one's favourite schtick revolving around absolutes, one-dimensional arguments and mysterious obstacles.

I am talking about the WHOLE playerbase. Some people only want a certain, for lack of a better term "hardcore" style to be the only wat to play and rewarded.

I want the whole to be taken into account, lowest 25% should get little or nothing, highest 25% should be rewarded, middle 50% should get enough to want to progress further.

Is that so bad a thing?

Good job guys!
(miss ya all btw)

Feel abit for new players that didnt get the easy gear when it was available. I mean I have some conq stuff on a lvl 31 sh Ive been in rvr maybe 2-3 hours with. You might want to consider a conq wipe.

Telen wrote:Feel abit for new players that didnt get the easy gear when it was available. I mean I have some conq stuff on a lvl 31 sh Ive been in rvr maybe 2-3 hours with. You might want to consider a conq wipe.

I feel that wipes are needed at this stage. But they don't want wipes sadly.

Fallenkezef wrote:

Darosh wrote:So, we are back to group identities; casuals versus 'pros', with apparently no crossover whatsoever, because surely that'd hurt one's favourite schtick revolving around absolutes, one-dimensional arguments and mysterious obstacles.

I am talking about the WHOLE playerbase. Some people only want a certain, for lack of a better term "hardcore" style to be the only wat to play and rewarded.

I want the whole to be taken into account, lowest 25% should get little or nothing, highest 25% should be rewarded, middle 50% should get enough to want to progress further.

Is that so bad a thing?

The assumption that everyone in these percentiles are 'trying their best' is noble and all, but the smaller the numbers the more accurate the representation.
The argument ultimately goes both ways, if it is unjust (for a lack of a better word) that people 'trying their best' get, supposedly, 'shafted'... it'd be unjust if the others that, too, try their best and score extraordinarily high get bunched up with people that 'tried their best' but did not manage to score comparatively (extraordinarily) high.

If we were discussing the old-old system in which only a tiny amount of bags were distributed over the 'whole playerbase', you'd have a point.
Matter of fact: Regardless of how you perform you'll get something, and that something scales with your performance.
The difference between the 'pros' and the 'casuals' (read: the difference between individuals) comes down to the total of time spent until BiS gear is obtained, rather than the mere opportunity to obtain said gear.
Equality of opportunity > equality of outcome as starting condition, the former accounts for individual performance (read: merits) whilst guranteeing the latter ~ as comparable effort will translate to comparable outcome.

The validation of effort is an important part of a puny human's workings, mandated opportunity of outcome runs contrary to it ~ hence 'competition' (made possible by equality of opportunity) as incentive.
Its difficault to speak of competition if by default anyone is getting shinies at the end ~ the only way to not get any shinies is to not even get close to where the competition is held; if this was a soccer match the equivalent of how rewards are handled would boil down to the audience receiving honorary mentions and a small trophy for watching the game...

Darosh wrote:

Fallenkezef wrote:

Darosh wrote:So, we are back to group identities; casuals versus 'pros', with apparently no crossover whatsoever, because surely that'd hurt one's favourite schtick revolving around absolutes, one-dimensional arguments and mysterious obstacles.

I am talking about the WHOLE playerbase. Some people only want a certain, for lack of a better term "hardcore" style to be the only wat to play and rewarded.

I want the whole to be taken into account, lowest 25% should get little or nothing, highest 25% should be rewarded, middle 50% should get enough to want to progress further.

Is that so bad a thing?

The assumption that everyone in these percentiles are 'trying their best' is noble and all, but the smaller the numbers the more accurate the representation.
The argument ultimately goes both ways, if it is unjust (for a lack of a better word) that people 'trying their best' get, supposedly, 'shafted'... it'd be unjust if the others that, too, try their best and score extraordinarily high get bunched up with people that 'tried their best' but did not manage to score comparatively (extraordinarily) high.

If we were discussing the old-old system in which only a tiny amount of bags were distributed over the 'whole playerbase', you'd have a point.
Matter of fact: Regardless of how you perform you'll get something, and that something scales with your performance.
The difference between the 'pros' and the 'casuals' (read: the difference between individuals) comes down to the total of time spent until BiS gear is obtained, rather than the mere opportunity to obtain said gear.
Equality of opportunity > equality of outcome as starting condition, the former accounts for individual performance (read: merits) whilst guranteeing the latter ~ as comparable effort will translate to comparable outcome.

The validation of effort is an important part of a puny human's workings, mandated opportunity of outcome runs contrary to it ~ hence 'competition' (made possible by equality of opportunity) as incentive.
Its difficault to speak of competition if by default anyone is getting shinies at the end ~ the only way to not get any shinies is to not even get close to where the competition is held; if this was a soccer match the equivalent of how rewards are handled would boil down the audience receiving honorary mentions and a small trophy for watching the game...

I think thats a little bit too much hyperbole

Fallenkezef wrote: I think thats a little bit too much hyperbole

I am 'trying my best' to match and out-do yours, mate. I hope it is being appreciated ~ even though I only speak for myself and not the 'whole playerbase', or a certain group for that matter.