Im gonna go ahead and try offer up the only possible counter argument I could think of (and even then its a really bad one). If it is the case that the large proportion of “Mature” paragons have moved to valiant already and only “Baby” paragons are left it may make sense to have downgraded the rewards as they were tuned more for the “Mature” group. This fails on two points though:
1) We can pretty comfortably say that the vast majority of paragons who were paragon right before necro are still paragons now today. Id be willing to bet money on the range of 85%.
2) Why on earth would a progression guarantee you less the longer its existed (in terms of the rarity of materials you can aquire). Does that mean eventually paragons are only getting T4CC once the newer titles come out? Then T4B? Absurdity. The trend has always been that rare materials become more available down the whole spectrum as more titles get introduced. You need to be at the highest tier to get the newest material but at no point has it ever been precedent to cut off access to previously attainable resources
Actually, the logic behind this was explained long ago, going all the way back to when Uncollected difficulty supplanted Master difficulty.
Most progression tiers are bounded above and below by other tiers. There's a sense in which there is an average Conqueror or average Uncollected player. The range of players in those progression tiers can't really grow much, because they are bounded above - a strong enough player is likely to promote out of it.
However, the highest progression tier is different, because there is no tier above it. As a result, the rewards targeting the highest progression tier at any one time have two separate demands on them. They must target the average player in that tier, just like with any other tier. But unlike any other tier, there are also special demands due to the fact that a chunk of those players at the upper edge of that tier are the end game players that have different psychological reward incentive demands. Rewards targeting the highest progression tier have always been a little larger than you would expect if you just extrapolated the rewards from lower tiers for that reason. In effect, the highest progression tier gets a kind of pseudo "end game bonus."
This doesn't just affect rewards. It can also affect difficulty. When Master tier difficulty was supplanted by Uncollected, Master's content difficulty dropped dramatically. That was due to the fact that Master difficulty no longer needed to have that "end game bonus."
This special handling only lasts so long as a progression tier is the top tier. When Master was no longer top tier, its difficulty dropped. When Paragon was no longer the top tier, the rewards that specifically target it no longer have that need to carry that extra bonus. It seems that in this case, this affected the design of the double track rewards.
This was the logic that guided me to the counter I offered. It is within reason to say there was a demographic shift after players progressed hence a reevaluation was needed but I offered up skepticism on two points.
You mentioned a valid instance of difficulty shifts due to said demographic changes but the interesting question would be about reward structure not difficulty (since difficulty dropping is beneficial while rewards dropping is detrimental). What Im curious about seeing are instance where the rewards became comparably worse after a new title was released. Something that was otherwise attainable in a bundle was suddenly cut out for a 1:1 worse item.
It would be extremely odd for an example of that to exist because, as we all know, rare items make their way down the progression tiers as Kabam seeks, in some part, to make sure that the highest tiers dont run completely away from the median
Just want to reiterate how much I’ve been enjoying this GW character arc
GW:
I wouldn't say it's any different than I've always been. I suppose I've been more verbal about issues lately, but I believe that's because there have been a number I had an issue with. I've always spoken up about anything I don't see eye-to-eye on. I just do my best to do it in a way that's respectful because at the end of the day, I still very much respect and appreciate the people who produce the game, as well as others. Plus I'm on week 3 of my new nicotine-free life, so it's possible I'm a tad more moody. 😅
Although that's not totally accurate. I'm more than grateful to be free from it after 34 years of smoking. No plans to return to it. If that gives anyone any kind of inspiration.
Im gonna go ahead and try offer up the only possible counter argument I could think of (and even then its a really bad one). If it is the case that the large proportion of “Mature” paragons have moved to valiant already and only “Baby” paragons are left it may make sense to have downgraded the rewards as they were tuned more for the “Mature” group. This fails on two points though:
1) We can pretty comfortably say that the vast majority of paragons who were paragon right before necro are still paragons now today. Id be willing to bet money on the range of 85%.
2) Why on earth would a progression guarantee you less the longer its existed (in terms of the rarity of materials you can aquire). Does that mean eventually paragons are only getting T4CC once the newer titles come out? Then T4B? Absurdity. The trend has always been that rare materials become more available down the whole spectrum as more titles get introduced. You need to be at the highest tier to get the newest material but at no point has it ever been precedent to cut off access to previously attainable resources
Actually, the logic behind this was explained long ago, going all the way back to when Uncollected difficulty supplanted Master difficulty.
Most progression tiers are bounded above and below by other tiers. There's a sense in which there is an average Conqueror or average Uncollected player. The range of players in those progression tiers can't really grow much, because they are bounded above - a strong enough player is likely to promote out of it.
However, the highest progression tier is different, because there is no tier above it. As a result, the rewards targeting the highest progression tier at any one time have two separate demands on them. They must target the average player in that tier, just like with any other tier. But unlike any other tier, there are also special demands due to the fact that a chunk of those players at the upper edge of that tier are the end game players that have different psychological reward incentive demands. Rewards targeting the highest progression tier have always been a little larger than you would expect if you just extrapolated the rewards from lower tiers for that reason. In effect, the highest progression tier gets a kind of pseudo "end game bonus."
This doesn't just affect rewards. It can also affect difficulty. When Master tier difficulty was supplanted by Uncollected, Master's content difficulty dropped dramatically. That was due to the fact that Master difficulty no longer needed to have that "end game bonus."
This special handling only lasts so long as a progression tier is the top tier. When Master was no longer top tier, its difficulty dropped. When Paragon was no longer the top tier, the rewards that specifically target it no longer have that need to carry that extra bonus. It seems that in this case, this affected the design of the double track rewards.
This was the logic that guided me to the counter I offered. It is within reason to say there was a demographic shift after players progressed hence a reevaluation was needed but I offered up skepticism on two points.
You mentioned a valid instance of difficulty shifts due to said demographic changes but the interesting question would be about reward structure not difficulty (since difficulty dropping is beneficial while rewards dropping is detrimental). What Im curious about seeing are instance where the rewards became comparably worse after a new title was released. Something that was otherwise attainable in a bundle was suddenly cut out for a 1:1 worse item.
The thinking is subtly different from a demographic shift, in that the implication is just that because the strongest players leave, the average player drops, so the difficulty and rewards also drop. That's a part of it, but not the whole part. The other part is that end game "thinking" is just plain different. There's no low tier Necropolis. Why there's no low tier Necropolis has to do with the fact that how progression works at the top is different from how it works everywhere else. The fact that end game players are thought about differently than any other player means everywhere they exist, things tend to get distorted.
To put it another way, this is impossible in real life, but suppose Kabam were to introduce a new top tier progression title above Valiant tomorrow, but for whatever reason no one chose to enter it. Valiant would experience no demographic shift, but it would no longer be the top title, and none of its players would be considered top progression players. Valiant would now be treated differently, even though its player population was different. In fact, this hypothetical requires some very broken game design so in reality Kabam wouldn't just sit by and adjust Valiant and allow this situation to persist, but it illustrates the principle.
Now, what you decide to do with this thinking is a matter of judgment. Just because this thinking exists, doesn't mean difficulty has to shift, or rewards have to change. They often do not, because other factors are at play. I'm simply stating what the underlying rationale is, based on what Kabam has said repeatedly in other contexts. But no change in the game is the result of one thought. It is always a judgment call to balance a large number of different counterbalancing rationales. It isn't because X, therefore Y. Rather, when it used to be A and then it becomes B, the reason why B is because there was always something pushing towards B all along, it is just that sometimes that thing wins, and sometimes that thing loses, among all other competing concerns.
Comments
This was the logic that guided me to the counter I offered. It is within reason to say there was a demographic shift after players progressed hence a reevaluation was needed but I offered up skepticism on two points.
You mentioned a valid instance of difficulty shifts due to said demographic changes but the interesting question would be about reward structure not difficulty (since difficulty dropping is beneficial while rewards dropping is detrimental). What Im curious about seeing are instance where the rewards became comparably worse after a new title was released. Something that was otherwise attainable in a bundle was suddenly cut out for a 1:1 worse item.
Plus I'm on week 3 of my new nicotine-free life, so it's possible I'm a tad more moody. 😅
To put it another way, this is impossible in real life, but suppose Kabam were to introduce a new top tier progression title above Valiant tomorrow, but for whatever reason no one chose to enter it. Valiant would experience no demographic shift, but it would no longer be the top title, and none of its players would be considered top progression players. Valiant would now be treated differently, even though its player population was different. In fact, this hypothetical requires some very broken game design so in reality Kabam wouldn't just sit by and adjust Valiant and allow this situation to persist, but it illustrates the principle.
Now, what you decide to do with this thinking is a matter of judgment. Just because this thinking exists, doesn't mean difficulty has to shift, or rewards have to change. They often do not, because other factors are at play. I'm simply stating what the underlying rationale is, based on what Kabam has said repeatedly in other contexts. But no change in the game is the result of one thought. It is always a judgment call to balance a large number of different counterbalancing rationales. It isn't because X, therefore Y. Rather, when it used to be A and then it becomes B, the reason why B is because there was always something pushing towards B all along, it is just that sometimes that thing wins, and sometimes that thing loses, among all other competing concerns.