Kyroteck Grind
So to start by saying that I think the gear economy is really good at the moment and that I don't want to come across like I want everything really easy! The 2 pinch points in the game imo, are kyr...
Forum Discussion
LOL.
That does seem to be what I'm saying. But I hope the longer version is useful.
I try very hard to say that there's not enough of something in the game since the game is supposed to be a grind. Just because there aren't enough of something from a player's perspective (like Omicrons) doesn't mean that there should be more. Whether or not there should be more depends on a lot of things, including whether CG intends that thing to be a bottleneck, and what role does that bottleneck serve?
If the bottleneck blocks access to content that CG wants everyone to play (and it's pretty clear that CG wants people to play Conquest, the raids, and RotE TB, then it's probably the wrong bottleneck and needs to change. But if it's on something optional or scaled, then the bottleneck is probably fine. (everyone can access GAC, for instance, and if you don't have enough gear or Omicrons you just don't have as much success...but you can still **participate** which solves the access question)
So the question is really not so much how many Kyros are in the game and how many are required by new toons, the question (at least from CG's perspective) is whether the current Kyro balance prevents people from accessing content that CG wants widely accessible.
If we were going to seriously argue for an increase in availability of Kyros, we would have to figure out what content Kyros are blocking. Otherwise we could convince each other, but CG wouldn't have any reason to pay attention and so the thread would be useless.
So from my perspective, since no one was seriously arguing that the Kyro economy is blocking CG's goals, I tried to focus on quantifying what's going on and when it gets better to give hope to the people that read the thread.
Sometimes you don't need more of X gear. Sometimes you just need a little more hope that eventually things get better. That's what I'm trying to give to people in this thread.
That does seem to be what I'm saying. But I hope the longer version is useful.
I try very hard to say that there's not enough of something in the game since the game is supposed to be a grind. Just because there aren't enough of something from a player's perspective (like Omicrons) doesn't mean that there should be more. Whether or not there should be more depends on a lot of things, including whether CG intends that thing to be a bottleneck, and what role does that bottleneck serve?
If the bottleneck blocks access to content that CG wants everyone to play (and it's pretty clear that CG wants people to play Conquest, the raids, and RotE TB, then it's probably the wrong bottleneck and needs to change. But if it's on something optional or scaled, then the bottleneck is probably fine. (everyone can access GAC, for instance, and if you don't have enough gear or Omicrons you just don't have as much success...but you can still **participate** which solves the access question)
So the question is really not so much how many Kyros are in the game and how many are required by new toons, the question (at least from CG's perspective) is whether the current Kyro balance prevents people from accessing content that CG wants widely accessible.
If we were going to seriously argue for an increase in availability of Kyros, we would have to figure out what content Kyros are blocking. Otherwise we could convince each other, but CG wouldn't have any reason to pay attention and so the thread would be useless.
So from my perspective, since no one was seriously arguing that the Kyro economy is blocking CG's goals, I tried to focus on quantifying what's going on and when it gets better to give hope to the people that read the thread.
Sometimes you don't need more of X gear. Sometimes you just need a little more hope that eventually things get better. That's what I'm trying to give to people in this thread.
