About rewards

[yann.1946]

I honestly feel like i should clarify, because ive seen arguments made against my op without actually adressing it.

 

My core argument is that enjoyment of a game/piece of content for most people is a combination of multiple factors :

 gameplay, social interaction, feeling rewarded/feeling your chasing something, etc...

 

Thus the moment on of these aspects disapears their will be people for which it is not fun anymore.

 

Is their anyone who actually disagrees with this.

[Gibson.4036]

8 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

 

The purpose of rewards is always twofold:

-Incentivizing people to play content they normally would not (in the hope that they start enjoying the content)

-Making people play a  part of the game longer then they normally would have.

It is therefore normal that people in general stop playing content ones they got the rewards they want. 

As some examples, The metas that keep being repeated the most give good "gold" rewards ( sometimes hidden in a rare drop) as that is an always usefull reward , After having done the return events people will probably not play the ls maps again if they did not before, etc.

 

 

There's another point to rewards. They provide a sense of progression. It's part of the RPG genre that your character grows through the things they encounter and overcome. It doesn't have to be a carrot leading you to the content nor one to keep you there longer. It rounds out the experience, and makes it feel like you aren't a spectator just passively interacting. Since you can't really change the world permanently, we're left with your character changing permanently, either picking up new abilities, new power, or even looking different over time.

[yann.1946]

1 minute ago, Gibson.4036 said:

There's another point to rewards. They provide a sense of progression. It's part of the RPG genre that your character grows through the things they encounter and overcome. It doesn't have to be a carrot leading you to the content nor one to keep you there longer. It rounds out the experience, and makes it feel like you aren't a spectator just passively interacting. Since you can't really change the world permanently, we're left with your character changing permanently, either picking up new abilities, new power, or even looking different over time.

Well that is why rewards increase enjoyment and why they work. 

I was more talking from a developers viewpoint.

 

But you are completely correct though.

[Cuks.8241]

Most games I play, computer and others, give no reward besides the satisfaction of winning and socialization. 

[Strider Pj.2193]

Somebody doesn’t know what WvW players did for the first 4 years of the game lmao.

 

Yes, people quit modes all the time.  Yes rewards hep that if they are effective.

 

But obviously you don’t really know what you are talking about.  For the first 4 years, people played WvW and spent more gold to play it then they earned in rewards.

 

Becaus it was fun.

 

Just because you are driven by rewards, (and you aren’t alone) doesn’t mean that everyone is.

 

Were people in WvW happy about the additional crumbs thrown their way?  Sure.

 

 

[Sylvyn.4750]

5 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Somebody doesn’t know what WvW players did for the first 4 years of the game lmao.

 

Yes, people quit modes all the time.  Yes rewards hep that if they are effective.

 

But obviously you don’t really know what you are talking about.  For the first 4 years, people played WvW and spent more gold to play it then they earned in rewards.

 

Becaus it was fun.

 

Just because you are driven by rewards, (and you aren’t alone) doesn’t mean that everyone is.

 

Were people in WvW happy about the additional crumbs thrown their way?  Sure.

 

 

Aye, if there was ever a counter argument to people playing modes just for the rewards, WvW takes the cake...not only back then but even with the current light sprinkling of gold dust we have now compared to other modes...ergo, it has to be played for the fun of it, or else pick another game mode, these aren't the rewards you are looking for.

[Strider Pj.2193]

13 minutes ago, Sylvyn.4750 said:

Aye, if there was ever a counter argument to people playing modes just for the rewards, WvW takes the cake...not only back then but even with the current light sprinkling of gold dust we have now compared to other modes...ergo, it has to be played for the fun of it, or else pick another game mode, these aren't the rewards you are looking for.

Exactly.

 

I mean, I understand what the OP is saying..  There are people that are almost purely reward driven.  But if you are, WvW ain’t for you lol.

[Forum Moderator.3419]

Hello Everyone,

Just a reminder to keep it civil and avoid attacking each other.

Regards.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Do you agree with the following two statements.

-People on average will get bored from a piece of content.

-Rewards adds fun to content on average for people. People will enjoy the pinata slightly more because of the change of the rare infusion then they would otherwise.

Both are true, to a degree. Your initial point however had nothing to do with those. You see, reward adding to the fun and helping extend the longevity of the content is not the same as reward becoming the sole reason for doing the content. First situation is okay, but second generally should be avoided.

[yann.1946]

Just now, Astralporing.1957 said:

Both are true, to a degree. Your initial point however had nothing to do with those. You see, reward adding to the fun and helping extend the longevity of the content is not the same as reward becoming the sole reason for doing the content. First situation is okay, but second generally should be avoided.

I never said they where the sole reason for doing the content. I said that them disappearing would make some people stop playing the content, sort of in the same way losing people normally play with will lead to people stop playing the game / content. 

[yann.1946]

6 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Both are true, to a degree. Your initial point however had nothing to do with those. You see, reward adding to the fun and helping extend the longevity of the content is not the same as reward becoming the sole reason for doing the content. First situation is okay, but second generally should be avoided.

And thank you for explaining what people read into my op. It really confused me why people were arguing against some strawmen of my position. 

[yann.1946]

57 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Exactly.

 

I mean, I understand what the OP is saying..  There are people that are almost purely reward driven.  But if you are, WvW ain’t for you lol.

But I never made that claim at all, this is not about being purely reward driven or playing purely for fun etc. 

 

 

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Sylvyn.4750 said:

Aye, if there was ever a counter argument to people playing modes just for the rewards, WvW takes the cake...not only back then but even with the current light sprinkling of gold dust we have now compared to other modes...ergo, it has to be played for the fun of it, or else pick another game mode, these aren't the rewards you are looking for.

I never said that everyone just plays for rewards. 

[Mungo Zen.9364]

@yann.1946

What is the motivation behinds this line of questions?

People will stop doing whatever (play games in this case) when they have enjoyed it enough.  As playing a game is not required to stay alive, one's decision to play or not play is entirely subjective.  While the game developers can entice players with ways to start playing GW2 and then keep playing GW2 it is entirely up to each player to decide if they want to play and how much is enough for them.

What motivates players to play will be different, and the 'reward' they are seeking may be a one time experience, or something they can have over and over.  Some want to open loot boxes, some want to enjoy the story, some want to experience the game mechanics; these all have different 'attention spans' built in that different players will engage with in different ways.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

49 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I never said they where the sole reason for doing the content. I said that them disappearing would make some people stop playing the content, sort of in the same way losing people normally play with will lead to people stop playing the game / content. 

That's because you started with "I've seen a lot of arguments of the type, "content X only get played because of rewards as lots of people stop after getting the rewards Y and Z from it". ".

Those types of arguments you just spoke against are generally used primarily when people point out that rewards should not be used as a way to push players into the content (so, basically, mainly when talking about that second case i mentioned before, and not about the first one). You speaking against those arguments would then naturally be read as you arguing for the idea that rewards can create content and be a primary reason for why anyone might play it. Especially when you shortly follow with the idea that the rewards' purpose should be incentivizing players to go into a specific content (and then keeping them there long after they no longer find it fun).

Even after your correction later on, i just simply cannot read your first post in any other way.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[yann.1946]

7 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

@yann.1946

What is the motivation behinds this line of questions?

People will stop doing whatever (play games in this case) when they have enjoyed it enough.  As playing a game is not required to stay alive, one's decision to play or not play is entirely subjective.  While the game developers can entice players with ways to start playing GW2 and then keep playing GW2 it is entirely up to each player to decide if they want to play and how much is enough for them.

What motivates players to play will be different, and the 'reward' they are seeking may be a one time experience, or something they can have over and over.  Some want to open loot boxes, some want to enjoy the story, some want to experience the game mechanics; these all have different 'attention spans' built in that different players will engage with in different ways.

 

People use the argument a lot that because people leave some content after getting the rewards they want, the content is suddenly not fun.

 

my point is that that argument is fallecious as that is the expected outcome of having rewards. As rewards are meant to  extend the time people play content and as such when people have gotten the rewards they want their always will be dip from players for which while the combination of rewards and all the other things they play was enough to make them play the content/game , just the other things weren't.

 

This argument holds if you replace  rewards with social interaction or any other of the reasons you gave.

[Astralporing.1957]

4 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

People use the argument a lot that because people leave some content after getting the rewards they want, the content is suddenly not fun.

No. people use that argument when they want to point out that certain content was never fun in the first place. And that rewards were the only reason why they played it.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[yann.1946]

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That's because you started with "I've seen a lot of arguments of the type, "content X only get played because of rewards as lots of people stop after getting the rewards Y and Z from it". ".

Those types of arguments are generally used primarily when people point out that rewards should not be used as a way to push players into the content (so, basically, mainly when talking about that second case i mentioned before, and not about the first one).

The argument is still used falleciously their, because it only gets used of the person already considers the content not fun.

This argument never holds, it is just a bad argument.

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

You speaking against those arguments would then naturally be read as you arguing for the idea that rewards can create content and be a primary reason for why anyone might play it.

I have to say, it really annoys me that people seem to want to argue of some strawmen of my position.

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Even after your correction later on, i just simply cannot read your first post in any other way.

If i changed reward to social interaction would you disagree with the argument?

[yann.1946]

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. people use that argument when they want to point out that certain content was never fun in the first place. And that rewards were the only reason why they played it.

But the argument does not show that, it is a fallecious argument at its foundation. You can not make that kind of conclusions from the given.

EDIT: My only interest here is getting rid of a bad argument nothing more, i honestly do not care whether the conclusion of the argument is sometimes correct per change. The argument does not show that conclusion.

Edited September 27, 2021 by yann.1946

[Astralporing.1957]

3 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

But the argument does not show that, it is a fallecious argument at its foundation. You can not make that kind of conclusions from the given.

No, you not agreeing with the reasons behind it does not make it fallacious.

Edit: and what you omit here is that the people using that argument generally expain quite well what they mean with it. It's you that are trying to put it out of context here.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[yann.1946]

Just now, Astralporing.1957 said:

No, you not agreeing with the reasons behind it does not make it fallacious.

Agreed, me not agreeing with the argument does not make it fallecious.

But you have already agreed with the reasons why it is fallecious.

 

Namely rewards can be used to extend gameplay time.

Meaning that for any piece of content and any unique reward a drop of players is expected ones people have gotten that reward.

This is just a consequence of the rewards extending of gameplay time, as the moment they have gotten the reward the time extending effect is not applicable to them anymore.

 

This argument also holds for social interaction,  ones people lose a social group that they play with they are more lickely to leave the game, So guilds disbanding also leads to dips in players.

[yann.1946]

@Astralporing.1957

No they dont explain well,the argument gets used as some rethoric gotcha. nothing more 99 percent of the time, and it only works on people who agree with the conclusion that the specific content people are talking about is not fun. 

[Astralporing.1957]

9 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Agreed, me not agreeing with the argument does not make it fallecious.

But you have already agreed with the reasons why it is fallecious.

 

Namely rewards can be used to extend gameplay time.

Again, the whole discussion has nothing to do with arguments about extending the gameplay time. It's all about discussion about using rewards to push players into the content they would not play otherwise.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm totally confused what this thread is trying to accomplish.  It seems the goalposts keep moving, or the topic changes, or ....  I've no idea. 

[Gibson.4036]

46 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. people use that argument when they want to point out that certain content was never fun in the first place. And that rewards were the only reason why they played it.

I'd go further. Most of the time I see the argument used when something not fun rewards better than areas that a person finds fun.

If engaging content (as individually defined) is as rewarding as finding an endlessly repeatable grind, I'd think most people would say, "more power to them, I make as much doing what I like." It's when you can go run a loop over and over and get better rewards that it starts to chafe, because people have to deal with the tension between doing what they find fun and doing what gives them better rewards.

There is an exception to this. Sometimes people aren't content if rewards are equal between what they find fun and and what they don't, because they see the content they like as inherently needing more skill or commitment to do, and feel that it should have better rewards than elsewhere.

But on the whole, "stop the farms," seems to come from a place of knowing you're settle for less reward doing something other than the farm.

EDIT: It's particularly sharpened by the fact that this game revolves so heavily around gold. The standard reply in so many places to "how to I best earn X" is "You'd be better off farming gold and just buying it". If I want red shiny widgets and I have to go to red zone to get them, and blue shiny widgets can only be gotten in blue zone, there's not as much invitation to compare rewards as when the answer is green zone hands you the most gold per hour, so go there and just buy blue and red shiny widgets. If I like blue zone, I have to decide between the zone I like, and the best income. If I had to earn those things directly, I'd just have to decide whether red zone was worth its widget or whether I'm content to with blue shiny widgets.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Gibson.4036