Battlepass in MMOs

State your opinion, I'll start with mine

They're dumb they are meant for repetitive games like shooters, they give you something to do in a games that are arena pvp weather it be a MOBA or Shooter. MMOs are supposed to keep you busy. adding chores on top of that for things I should just be able to work for tends to leave a bad taste in mouth.

Also the monetization of it is kind of dumb as well. FFXIV and WoW have raked in large amounts of money just doing cosmetics on the shop, do that without the predatory fear of missing out.

One other argument for me was when I was playing NW I wanted to support the game, I bought up dyes and emotes and spent more money on that game then I have any other game as far as cosmetics, I supported it because it was simple and clean way for them to make extra money. I stopped giving them my money after they started doing the battlepass. It even made me not care about collecting all the emotes anymore. It wasn't even to protest, I just stopped caring.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Let me know if i need more... check out around 57 seconds in. It is fun having you around though.

Yes. You have to find something more than that.
If I disliked Ashes, I wouldn't even test the Alphas and Betas. And there would be no way to get me to explore Verra after launch.
And I would be saying that Ashes has an objectively shitty design.

Kinda reminds me of my grandma's "spaghetti". Spaghetti noodles with tomato paste and sugar.
I lived with my grandma while I went to college. I started cooking on my own on a frequent basis after college.
I could eat a couple platefuls of my grandma's "spaghetti". It was decent tasting pasta. But it wouldn't satisfy my craving for spaghetti.
Spaghetti would at least have to be on the level of my mom's which would include a bottle of Ragu sauce and some cooked ground beef.
During my starving artist summer in NYC, after college, I discovered spice shops and began incorporating freshly chopped or recently dried spices into my cooking.
My own spaghetti might also include some freshly chopped tomatoes, fresh basil and oregano and italian sausage along with ground beef. And then I'd also craft dishes with various forms of pasta besides just spaghetti.
After my mom tasted my spaghetti, she adjusted he recipe to become closer to mine.
I didn't dislike my grandma's "spaghetti" but I consider that to be pasta, rather than spaghetti.
And, if I had a choice of recipes, there's a bunch of others I'd prefer over hers.
If hers was the only "spaghetti" available, sure I would eat it. Because I don't dislike it.

I would love to see grammy's face when you tell her that you are not the target audience for her sauce. and that you enjoy other grandmas sauce more. and then when you add that your grammy has advertised her sauce as something it is not... she is gonna beat your ass. lol. incidentally, i am sure she could.

You think she will agree with the moronic argument?

I would like to add that i think you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people i have ever encountered.

you would never tell grammy those things.. because you are not trying to change her.

Individuated Soul

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.

The great thing about Battlepasses is that they incentivize other activities besides just monster hunting to increase BiS gear.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.

You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.

I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.

And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)

So in essence you would rather pay for something that could've been offered for free in game? That's how I read your post.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.

The great thing about Battlepasses is that they incentivize other activities besides just monster hunting to increase BiS gear.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.

You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.

I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.

And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)

This is primarily because of a large gap that I find exists in perceptions of people who take games as being about their supposed primary goal/playloop.

Since adding additional content to strongly designed open-world games isn't particularly difficult, many of the more serious development studios just add it, or do their best to support multiple styles of play, and just consider it accepted and understood, that players who wish to take those approaches, will do so.

If anything, Intrepid, I would like you to understand that part. If you don't look closer or ask more (but you always do, and for that I'm thankful) about the games people enjoy, it will be difficult to come up with something that resonates, and you might end up like Riot.

It is absolutely true that Monster Hunter involves combat, you cannot meaningfully progress in the game without some level of combat. But Monster Hunter also has tracking, Gathering, Fishing, fashion, collecting decorations for your house, simply observing monster habitats, doing 'research studies' on smaller nonthreatening monsters, social events, and a few diplomacy quests.

Most half-baked MMORPGs don't even get up to the Monster Hunter level of depth, which is partly why the MMORPG genre 'suffers' a bit. There's literally more content in MHW for me to do than there was in console launch BDO. I only even bought BDO to kill time until MHW released.

Please continue getting information from many gamers with many experiences.

I have spent less than half my time in Monster Hunter actually fighting things, I believe.

Aszkalon

I am the Battlepass.

Now give me everything i want. (lol)

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Not really, because many MMORPGs changed at some point to appeal to players that mostly want a game to tell them a story while pulling them through a world.

I don't think they changed. Interactive storytelling, primarily through Quests, is the foundation of RPGs.
And that's why Everquest has ever quest as its name.

Azherae wrote: »

This is also why they then 'died' because things like Genshin do that better.

I mean, that's saying that MMORPGs died in 1999.

Azherae wrote: »

So, and I'm not even talking about Dygz here, I know people for whom this isn't content. They want to play Raid:Shadow Legends or AFK Journey or similar things, where they 'set some stuff and then basically hit a few buttons to occasionally feel engaged'.

The 'dynamic world' portion of Ashes may not work for those people, I can at least assure you finally that when Dygz says that he wants to Ever Quest, it's not the same thing as what I'm thinking of.

I think most people would prefer a dynamic world.
How the dynamic world is implemented is important, though.
I'm not sure why you seem to be placing dynamic world in opposition with ever quests.
The foundation of RPGs is co-op play rather than PvP, so when I want to play an RPG, I'm rarely going to be in the mood for PvP. I'd say that PvP is what causes the corruption (pardon the pun) of MMORPGs.
So I would rather be playing an MMORPG with a dynamic world that has minimal PvP.
And I would prefer new content (including new quests/tasks/story) to be introduced every 3 months, rather than every 18 months. And Battlepasses help accomplish that.

Azherae wrote: »

A... large part of the audience that they now attract, do not consider 'varied challenges based on changing world factors' to be 'content'. There would need to be changes to something they perceive as a 'story'.

I don't think that's accurate.
In the case of Ashes, Intrepid is already planning to have a Cosmetics Market and they've already created a Battlepass for APOC, so I expect their Cosmetics Market to come in the form of a Battlepass. Especially because the current trend is for MMOs to have a Battlepass.

I think what I would say about Monster Hunter is that I don't consider hunting monsters to be "varied challenges". That's basically the same type of challenge.
And what I like about Battlepasses is that there are more varied tasks/"challenges" to complete than just killing stuff. And sometimes they can push me to engage in activities that I would normally ignore.

Dygz

Individuated Soul wrote: »

So in essence you would rather pay for something that could've been offered for free in game? That's how I read your post.

I typically play the free path of Battlepass.
Sometimes Battlepasses are kinda outside the game, like NW and Fortnite.
Sometimes Battlepasses are in-game, like WoW.

Azherae

I believe I've explained to you before, Dygz, that you do not get EXP for questing in FFXI.

Now, I know you have many opinions on what that means, but you cannot both make the point 'this is how RPGs work' and when shown an RPG where it doesn't work that way, just claim 'that means it's not an RPG' when your original point is related to why someone else should expect it.

I understand that you have a very narrow definition of RPG, but your definition seems to contain things that are not requirements, that you have tacked on, and it's sadly made it difficult to have conversations with you about many things.

So, to be clear, I was referring to the difference between a game where the game tells you the story, as opposed to a game full of lore that you can go out and discover yourself. Albion Online is still an MMORPG.

Also, I'm not sure if you're just refusing to accept it, or what, but I offer you this character from Monster Hunter...

https://monsterhunterworld.wiki.fextralife.com/Endemic+Life+Researcher

One of multiple.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

This is primarily because of a large gap that I find exists in perceptions of people who take games as being about their supposed primary goal/playloop.

Since adding additional content to strongly designed open-world games isn't particularly difficult, many of the more serious development studios just add it, or do their best to support multiple styles of play, and just consider it accepted and understood, that players who wish to take those approaches, will do so.

Kinda.
I don't think we actually disagree.

Azherae wrote: »

It is absolutely true that Monster Hunter involves combat, you cannot meaningfully progress in the game without some level of combat. But Monster Hunter also has tracking, Gathering, Fishing, fashion, collecting decorations for your house, simply observing monster habitats, doing 'research studies' on smaller nonthreatening monsters, social events, and a few diplomacy quests.

Maybe. I just watched another MHW fan rant against Battlepasses.
He said, "I LOVE farming new weapons. That's the whole point of Monster Hunter! That's literally the whole point of the game! You hunt the monster... you get the bits of the monster, then you bring it back, then you make better armor, better weapon, then you go and hunt a bigger monster. Then you bring its bits back, then you craft better armor and a better weapon and then you go hunt the next big monster."

Azherae wrote: »

Most half-baked MMORPGs don't even get up to the Monster Hunter level of depth, which is partly why the MMORPG genre 'suffers' a bit. There's literally more content in MHW for me to do than there was in console launch BDO. I only even bought BDO to kill time until MHW released.

It's true that I haven't played it so, I don't truly know what Endgame is like, although...
This same guy in the vid I watched said, "I think ultimately Battlepasses stagnate the industry because when you can artificially stretch the lifespan of a game by constantly brining out these Battlepasses and new skins and all of that jazz, you're not really innovating anything. You're just prolonging the life of this game. I want to see the next thing. Like, I've finished Monster HUnter: World and then I'm 'Cool! Loved it. It was friggin' amazing. I don't feel pressured, like I have to keep playing it every single day. And, at the same time, I can't wait for the next one."
But, I don't want an MMORPG to be a game that I finish and then wait for the next expansion. I want an MMORPG to be something that I'm playing every week - if not every day. And I especially don't want to have to wait 12-18 months for the next content drop.

Sure. In Ashes, Nodes are supposed to be the solution to implementing new content dynamically (while we wait for an expansion).
But, I didn't say that Ashes needs a Battlepass to help with that.
For Ashes, Battlepass is just my expected mode for the Ashes Cosmetic Market.
But, the Battlepass works as a valid solution to Endgame, for me, for WoW and NW and Fortnite - because they basically function as ever Quests with new Seasonal content and rewards. And I will rotate through them for several weeks every month or every couple of months.
And because Battlepasses typically also offer a monetized path as well as a free path, I expect them to remain a popular for MMORPGs for the next handful of years, at least.

Azherae wrote: »

I have spent less than half my time in Monster Hunter actually fighting things, I believe.

But only around 1K hours and you've played for how many months?

Looks like 11K-15K is the typical concurrent players month to month.
Isn’t Intrepid hoping for more than that??
How many servers would that be? 3?

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Maybe. I just watched another MHW fan rant against Battlepasses.
He said, "I LOVE farming new weapons. That's the whole point of Monster Hunter! That's literally the whole point of the game! You hunt the monster... you get the bits of the monster, then you bring it back, then you make better armor, better weapon, then you go and hunt a bigger monster. Then you bring its bits back, then you craft better armor and a better weapon and then you go hunt the next big monster."

Yeah, but this exists in every MMORPG.

This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, but this exists in every MMORPG.

This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.

Not really. It’s a matter of degree.
Level progression is part of the story. Or should be.
Gear progression is almost a byproduct.
Although, combat should be a prominent option for Level progression, there should be many other ways to gain xp.

Sure. Because combat was the easiest for video game devs to program, MMORPGs are heavily focused on combat as the primary way to progress.
Especially because gamers can race through Quests in a matter of weeks and devs want gamers playing for years - they began to focus heavily on Gear progression as the Endgame loop.
So now we have a generation of gamers who primarily play for the Gear progression Endgame loop. But what you really mean is that more people play during Endgame for Gear progression than for story because players playing for story are going to stop playing when the story runs out at Endgame.
We agree. That the gear progression loop is popular in MMORPGs. But, Monster Hunter seems to be myopically focused on the Gear progression loop - more so that is typical in MMORPGs.

Battlepasses offer Tasks that focus on other activities besides Max Level content and besides Gear progression.
And they offer associated rewards that are not focused on improving Combat. And, those Seasonal Cosmetics and thematic content typically help tweak the story.
Which is why there’s typically a significant jump in population at the beginning of a new Battlepass, like a 5x jump in population.
So, again, I think we actually agree that the Gear progression loop is popular. But it’s not really more popular in general - it’s specifically more popular at Endgame once the players who want to do other stuff besides the BiS Gear progression loop leave the game.

Laetitian

Dygz wrote: »

abc0815 wrote: »

The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).

How do you maintain the fun after you've played through the content with 4 different characters?

You come up with your own projects/objectives, or you pursue player versus player competition.

The existing game loop of achieving things in the world, shaping it to your vision (or competing against other players) should be interesting enough to keep you playing. Aside from the responsive world design aspects, that includes things like dungeons, quests, playing new roles and levelling new characters. But if that isn't interesting to you anymore, you should probably just play another game or do something else with your time, instead of pursuing random busywork checklists the devs generated to keep you paying your subscription.

Even if there are parts of the game you hadn't previously tried out or enjoyed, there's really no good reason why a battlepass would have to be required to get you to explore and enjoy those things. At that point your interest is so low, you might as well do anything else with your time.

Roelath

Battlepasses are not good for a MMORPG that has a subscription model. If the game can't deliver content with a sub model that it needs Battlepass content(Kill X, Do X, Play X) & funding it's already a dead game. Especially for a game such as Ashes where it's intended to be community driven content. If the game ever did a Battlepass system we'd see it go F2P in a year because the sub numbers are that abysmal.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

I believe I've explained to you before, Dygz, that you do not get EXP for questing in FFXI.

I don’t know why I’m supposed to care about an outlier??

Azherae wrote: »

Now, I know you have many opinions on what that means, but you cannot both make the point 'this is how RPGs work' and when shown an RPG where it doesn't work that way, just claim 'that means it's not an RPG' when your original point is related to why someone else should expect it.

Of course I can make that claim and be correct when I did not state that every RPG has xx feature or trait.
Is FFXI the most popular FF game?
Is it instigating a new trend in MMORPGs?
Do you think that I’m claiming that individual dev teams can’t label their game an RPG, even when it’s not or even when it doesn’t have all the parameters of an RPG?
Is Rugby Soccer? Is American Football Soccer? Is Soccer Football?

Azherae wrote: »

I understand that you have a very narrow definition of RPG, but your definition seems to contain things that are not requirements, that you have tacked on, and it's sadly made it difficult to have conversations with you about many things.

Yeah. I don’t think I said anything like “requirements”. I don’t know why you are adding “requirements” to anything I said regarding fundamental RPG traits/features/rules/mechanics.

Azherae wrote: »

So, to be clear, I was referring to the difference between a game where the game tells you the story, as opposed to a game full of lore that you can go out and discover yourself. Albion Online is still an MMORPG.

I think the concepts you mean to convey here are emergent story v dev curated story?
And you also seem to be saying, “Among the thousands of RPGs I can find one that doesn’t have a parameter you say is fundamental and then I can find another one that doesn’t have a different parameter you find that makes your claim invalid.
If I can find one Human who can’t speak that invalidates your claim that speech is a fundamental Human trait.
Oh! Look. Someone taught an Ape sign language!”
Yes. It is possible to find individual exceptions to a rule that are not great examples of the rule.
Somebody made a square watermelon.
OK. When I said that Watermelon are fundamentally round, did I also state that it’s impossible to have a square watermelon?
I don’t think I claimed anything like that.
Is it possible to make seedless oranges or seedless grapes. Sure.

I say, “A fundamental feature of Football is an oval ball that players toss down the field.”
You say, “That’s not true because you can sometimes kick the ball down the field. It’s also not true because Soccer is also called Fútbol and that has a round ball and only the goalie can toss the ball down the field.
You have a narrow vision of what Football can be.”

I’m talking about American Football.
Then you give me an example of gameplay from Soccer.
When I say, “That’s not Football, that’s Soccer”, you say, “Well, they call it Fútbol in Mexico.”
🤷🏾‍♂️
Technically, Kickball could be labeled Football.

Typically when I say, “That’s not an RPG”, when you look at the official website, the devs will not state that their game is an RPG.
The exception to that might be Hack n Slash Action RPGs. Because those games move so quickly RPing is barely even possible.
When practically the sole purpose of those games is to mow down a plethora of targets in less than 15 seconds. And then race to the next group of targets.

Azherae wrote: »

Also, I'm not sure if you're just refusing to accept it, or what, but I offer you this character from Monster Hunter...

One of multiple.

Refusing to accept what?
You seem to be trying to give me an example of a Class.
Instead of giving me an example of Tasks/Quests to do at Endgame that are outside of the Gear progression loop.

As far as I can tell, MH does not do a better job of retaining players at Endgame than MMORPGs that have a Battlepass.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Not really, because many MMORPGs changed at some point to appeal to players that mostly want a game to tell them a story while pulling them through a world.

I don't think they changed. Interactive storytelling, primarily through Quests, is the foundation of RPGs.
And that's why Everquest has ever quest as its name.

RPGs do not need to be about story.
RPG is about the player being able to imagine being the character he plays and having some control over the decisions that character makes, to influence it's future.
If you take away control, then the story is linear, like watching a movie.
If you add control but take curated story away, the world can still offer the experience of being a fighter, bounty hunter, thief, trader, crafter, hunter, mayor...
If you take these and you separate them into different games and focus to amplify the feeling a player would get in an RPG game, you get new specialized games:

figter -> hero fighting game or strategy if you are a leader
bounty hunter -> you have specific (quest like) objectives
thief -> stealth game
trader -> economic strategy/survival
crafter -> economic strategy/survival
hunter -> survival
mayor -> city builder/strategy

Story helps immersion and entertainment when the developer is not able to add the story elements into the random encounters of a sand box world.
But as soon as the developer wants to specialize and wants to push players to follow a story, it takes their freedom away. Basically is not a role playing anymore but about seeing the story.

Example of a game which has all the elements I listed above:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/233860/Kenshi/
The story is whatever you chose to do and you can even amaze other people by telling what events happened and what decisions you had to take, some with ethical or emotional impact, if you can immerse yourself (else you just use the game mechanics to reach a goal but you are not "role playing").
So a good RPG game does not need story but a good story may hide the poor RPG world behind it.

Now you can transform the RPG game into an MMORPG and you can get the same experience while interacting with other players too. And you still don't need a story. Dygz needs but the character doesn't.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, but this exists in every MMORPG.

This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.

Not really. It’s a matter of degree.
Level progression is part of the story. Or should be.
Gear progression is almost a byproduct.

It absolutely is not.

King Arthur getting Excalibur. Frodo getting the Mithril coat. Hercules and his Nemeon Lion armor. Ironman with his suit upgrades. Thor creating Tormod. Endgame need to craft time travel suits.

In fact, the only means of gaining power as a troupe in finctional work that is more common than hunting out new equipment is in hunting out allies.

I don't recall Gilgamesh ever leveling up.

Point is - gear acquisition is a key part of fantasy story telling, always has been, always will be, and to say it isn't a key part of MMORPG's is simply missing the point of the genre.

Getting gear is a part of the games storytelling. When you consider the fact that allies in an MMORPG are generally a given, gear acquisition is probably the primary means of storytelling based progression left.

Ludullu

I think I've found a reason for, at least my own, misunderstanding with Dygz' pov.

I want new sources for content, while Dygz wants new pointers towards content.

Battlepasses never add new content, they simply point you towards already-existing pieces of content and tell you to do them. For Dygz that seems to be enough to satisfy his everquesting, while for me (and seemingly quite a few others) that is not enough and I want new sources with new reasonings behind the content.

Dygz likes to bring up his high exploratory bartle score, but I feel like that quiz should also separate the explorers into physical and mental ones. A physical explorer is interested in going to different places and seeing different stuff, which can serve as purely its own content and source of reward. A mental explorer would want and seek out new experiences, which would then be their own reward.

Dygz has stated that he wants rewards for doing things that he doesn't usually do. To me this implies that he's not much of a mental explorer, because to him doing those new things aren't enough of a reward on their own.

And because of that, when a BP can point Dygz towards something that he hasn't considered trying and says "this is your new content and I'll give you a reward for doing it" - that's true and is in fact perceived as new content.

But to someone like me, I would've already tried that content, if I was done with all the stuff that I had a higher interest in. So BP telling me "hey, I got new content for you" would be an utter lie, because I would've already known about (and probably experienced) that piece of content, so I would see the BP reward as "something that I gotta do chore repetitive content for" rather than a cool reward for new content.

As an example of this, throughout my years of playing L2 I played every single class to the best of my ability and to the absolute extent of the knowledge of that class. I obviously had "mains" and preferences, but I still tried out every other source of content variant in the game. So if L2 had a theoretical BP that would tell me "to go play this other class" it'd just be a repeat of something that I've already done.

I also think this is the core difference in overall BP attitude among players. All the BP lovers don't really enjoy fully mentally exploring the games they play, so when the BP gives them a direct incentive to do something new (to them) - they're happy with that. But BP dislikers are probably the people that have enjoyed the game to its absolute fullest already and now want something new, while the devs give them a BP and say "here's a pointer towards the content you like, go enjoy it", but these players have an intrinsic liking of content, rather than a desire for external reward structures, so they obviously dislike this BP and see it as lazy gamedesign.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

But to someone like me, I would've already tried that content, if I was done with all the stuff that I had a higher interest in. So BP telling me "hey, I got new content for you" would be an utter lie, because I would've already known about (and probably experienced) that piece of content, so I would see the BP reward as "something that I gotta do chore repetitive content for" rather than a cool reward for new content.

Same.

This is why I consider something like this to be akin to daily quests. It is literally just asking me to do something I've already done, something boring and monotonous.

And yeah, people like Dygz do indeed just want text on their screen telling them what to do. It isn't about content at all - as Battlepass type systems generally don't add any.

Dygz is the only person that fits in to this group that I have come across that is against daily quests - this is normally the bread and butter of such players, as they are literally given directions every day.

Saabynator

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

But to someone like me, I would've already tried that content, if I was done with all the stuff that I had a higher interest in. So BP telling me "hey, I got new content for you" would be an utter lie, because I would've already known about (and probably experienced) that piece of content, so I would see the BP reward as "something that I gotta do chore repetitive content for" rather than a cool reward for new content.

Same.

This is why I consider something like this to be akin to daily quests. It is literally just asking me to do something I've already done, something boring and monotonous.

And yeah, people like Dygz do indeed just want text on their screen telling them what to do. It isn't about content at all - as Battlepass type systems generally don't add any.

Dygz is the only person that fits in to this group that I have come across that is against daily quests - this is normally the bread and butter of such players, as they are literally given directions every day.

I really dislike daily quests. Especially if they give some stuff that you need that is important. I play to have fun, daily quests are a chore - basically work. A battlepass is optional. Its not something you need to progress. Its for players who want something cosmetic, and thats a whole different ballgame. Som e people likes to chase that, and more power to them, as long as I dont have to.

Noaani

Saabynator wrote: »

I really dislike daily quests..

Most of the community here does.

I don't recall if it was an Intrepid led vote or discussion, but they bought log in rewards up a few years ago and the community here was VERY loud and near unanimous in saying we don't want anything like that, including daily quests.

So, Intrepid are well aware that the vast majority of the community (or at least the community back then) absolutely do not want them.

Saabynator

Noaani wrote: »

Saabynator wrote: »

I really dislike daily quests..

Most of the community here does.

I don't recall if it was an Intrepid led vote or discussion, but they bought log in rewards up a few years ago and the community here was VERY loud and near unanimous in saying we don't want anything like that, including daily quests.

So, Intrepid are well aware that the vast majority of the community (or at least the community back then) absolutely do not want them.

Very nice. I mean, if AoC has gotten the features that they are saying it will have, then there will be plenty to do, bessides having to do the same quests over and over.

Child Item