Mazey

No, base expectations are not being given anything.

It's so damn entitled that there is actually a saying in the English language specifically aimed at people who go "Yeah, you're giving me something, but it's not good enough or you didn't present it in the right way."

You may have heard of it, I believe it describes how you shouldn't peer into the front most orifice of a bequeathed equine.

Edit:
And no, I'm not ignoring the parts of your posts that I'm not quoting, I'm just not quoting them.

Well, that's pretty damn entitled.

You're complaining when someone gives you a car for free but then expects you to pay for the steering wheel.

Yeah, I think the word "entitlement" applies.

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

Now, that's certainly a good thing, but the issue is that now we have both extremes being catered to with incarnate content, but nothing in the middle. Which leads to three possibilities for the future:

1) The middle ground never gets filled and incarnate content is always "challenging", super large team trials or casual, small team story. And players have to pick one or the other.
2) We get entirely new content focused on the middle ground.
or
3) Some of the existing content gets adapted to cater for the middle ground more.

People in this thread have been mostly arguing for 3 because 1 is obviously undesirable and 2 would require a large amount of resources devoted to it. So 3 seems like a quick and easy solution.

Personally, I'd quite like to see some of the trials be completely revamped so they could be started, and completed, by a team of 4. MoM is one that springs to mind.
That would achieve the effect of catering to the middle ground just as well as adding AVs to DA would.

Ultimately, the only option I don't want to see happen is 1.

J_B isn't a dev.

You're talking about the practicality of the situation. I'm talking about the logical consistency of people's arguments.

Yes, from the practicality of the situation, people who are against the change already have what they want, and people for the change have to convince the devs. Of course they do.

But I'm not talking about that. So none of that changes what I was saying at all.

Edit: If you want my practical opinion:
I disagree with the devs decision to make the DA bosses exclusively EBs though I understand, to some extent, why they did. I'm glad they're going to take this thread into consideration for future content but, even before Dr. Aeon's comment, I didn't expect any change to actually occur to the existing content.

Because not everyone agrees with the devs' design decisions?
They're not gods you know...

That sounds exactly like all the arguments people made against there even being a solo incarnate path in the first place. Just aimed at a different ideal.

The logical concept of "the Burden of Proof" is distinct from "what you have to do to make something happen in the real world".

Very often, in the real world, things which have yet to be justified will happen anyway, and things which have been justified won't happen regardless.

Yes. Because that's true.

If even one person wants something to happen, and there is absolutely no reason why it would be in any way costly for it to happen, then why shouldn't it happen?

The burden of proof is absolutely, 100%, on the people who say something shouldn't happen.

You say as much yourself:

Exactly.

If the people opposing the option can't even come up with one single mechanical reason against the idea, and have to resort to saying things like "I'm against it on principle", they have no case at all.

The burden of proof is absolutely on them.

Now if they do come up with potential problems then the burden of proof switches to the people in favour of adding the option and they then have to explain why those problems aren't really problems, come up with solutions to the problems, or explain why those problems are less significant than the advantages gained from the change (weighted appropriately).

But that's no different to any situation, once the burden of proof is satisfied by one side, it switches to the other. The original burden of proof, in this case, is most definitely with those against the option, and as long as they fail to satisfy it at all, as was the case for the first several pages of this thread, it remains with them.

And again you just ignore things which have been said:
What about teams sized 4-6 players?

They're not small teams, they're not soloers and they can't do trials.
Are you seriously suggesting that there should be an entirely new zone for those groups because "on principle" DA isn't for them?

No, I never said it would.
The point is that the game is already inconsistent. Disallowing an extra option for larger teams isn't going to change that.

DA is meant to make soloists feel more powerful than any other character in game? Great, it does that fine. Giving us the option of AVs isn't going to change that.

Then, how come, when I leave DA and do the STF, Black Scorpion can one shot me if I'm not careful? While, if I fight him from a DA mission, I can solo him in seconds?
Have I suddenly stopped being an incarnate when I leave DA? If so, what are all these Lore pets and Judgement powers doing in my tray?

Because, where's the path that caters to teams of 4-6 players?

They can't do trials, because you need 8 minimum for the small ones, and the DA bosses are too easy for them.

So where's the incarnate content for them?

What would make more sense, that the devs make another whole incarnate zone that doesn't cater to soloers, and doesn't cater to leagues, and instead caters to medium groups, or that the devs simply alter the bosses of DA to allow both soloers and medium groups to enjoy them?

No, it isn't.
DA is the non-trial incarnate path.
As has been pointed out, the devs do not refer to it as the "solo path", that's how the players refer to it.

No, iTrials are for 8 people minimum.
If DA is for soloers only, then we don't have an incarnate path for standard teams.

To an extent, yes.
Why shouldn't someone try and solo an incarnate trial if they want?
The arbitrary lower limits on TFs and trials is unnecessary, a simple warning should be enough if someone attempts to go with an inadequate team size.

Did you read my post at all?

Yes, I know it doesn't need to support teaming, but that's beside the point. Why shouldn't it support teaming?

A lack of need is not a reason against.

None of that addresses the issue in the slightest.
All you've done is show that Dark Astoria doesn't need to fully accommodate teams. Of course it doesn't, we all already knew that. But it doesn't matter, because that's not the issue.

The question isn't "Does Dark Astoria need to accommodate teams?"
The question's "Why shouldn't Dark Astoria accommodate teams?"

And you've yet to provide a single reason why teams shouldn't be accommodated in Dark Astoria.

They're not meant to be the same.
It's exactly like the salvage table rewards.

You're most likely to get a common, then an uncommon which is better, then a rare which is better than that and lastly the least likely is a very rare which is the best.

On the merit reward table, you're most likely to get 2 astrals, but you might get the better emp instead if you're lucky.

You should switch to a hero side character (or move your MM hero side if you have the alignment functionality unlocked, or are willing to pay for a side switching token) as Union isn't empty at all, it just everyone is hero side.

Also, if you have enough tokens for chat channels, make sure to join Union Chat.

Yes, that would be the ultimate April Fool's day event.

This is true and definitely a problem.

They've taken some steps to solve this in the newer SSAs though. When there's a dialogue part in mission, the character you're talking to talks both with the dialogue menu and with a summery in the standard speech bubble fashion. This allows team-mates to follow the jist of the story and allows you to read back the summery in the speech logs.

It's certainly not perfect, and I definitely agree with what you're saying, but the devs have at least recognised the problem to some extent.

I can see that could help, but it's hardly vital advantage.

No, they don't. That precisely the point.

The idea of free to play games is that you're trying to get people to play who wouldn't otherwise and then, once they're hooked, or hooked again, they start paying money.

If you turn people off right away, you've gone against the very principle you're trying to exploit.

It's not hand waving, it's a statistical anomaly.
Not to mention, if you take account of your drops as a whole, not just threads. You get an increase on the controls all three times, as much as a 70% increase one time.

You say you made this thread in the hopes the developers will look into it.
If you think they might, then either you have no understanding of statistics, or you believe that the developers don't.

Because no-one with such an understanding would ever think that a single test with three controls would be enough to justify a retest of the entire system.

The fact you made a new thread about this suggests the exact opposite.

It's called bad luck.
The fact of the matter is, if you use the windfalls, you going to see a 50% greater drop rate on average.
Sometimes you'll see less than that, sometimes you'll see more than that.

What it comes down to are two issues.

a) Do you think 50% is worth it?
and
b) Do you dispute that the 50% extra is working properly?

Issue 'a' comes down to a matter of opinion and is something you know without need to test at all. You know what the current 100% drop rate is, and so you know what 150% is. You already know if those extra 50% is worth the cost to you or not.

Issue 'b' is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact, and if you want to make a claim about it, you need to provide proof.

So, really, if you don't care about 'b' at all, and you don't care about our opinions on 'a', what the hell is the point of this thread?