Forgotten Dungeons

Silverbull shares can buy crates

 

I mean, yes, but I'd argue that a single crosslink between main content and store content doesn't count. If it does count then this post's point is moot because Dungeons already let you get otherwise-paid cosmetics for free, they're just less effective at that than Lootruns. It's not productive for criticism of the game's features if we count the Trade Market letting you technically access every item in the store if you have the ridiculous number of emeralds required. (And someone still has to buy the shares.)

 

true true

 

1.

2.

1. Yeah, but I already said that this is more of a temporary solution. And as I said already I do not think that dungeons are development priority, so the real question becomes: should they remain obsolete until a rework arrives (at some time) or is there value in lightweight incentive that restore engagement without altering balance? And yeah I agree that (as I said) the better option would be rewards rework, but my proposal could be introduced as easy to implement, lightweight incentive to restore some replayability until full rework arrives. And regarding the argument about precedent - it's true that Wynncraft has traditionally not distributed cosmetics through game content (excluding the shares). But the precedent alone doesn't make something a bad design choice. For a precedent to matter it must be tied to real risk, for example, balance issues or monetization impact. And as discussed earlier in this thread, the proposal dungeon cosmetics would be limited, optional and would not influence (I think) badly monetization system. And as it was already said, empirically, the game already provides free cosmetics. Because in fact I think that this arguemnt will work only if it meant in fact the potential problem that was already discussed. Overmore in that context, the precedent is a formal habit, not a rule grounded in game design er economic necessity. The proposal maintains the existing incentive structure (and discussion about that happened already, so to be honest another only declaration of somehting doesn't change anything): crates remain the primary source of variety and most of higher-tier cosmetics, while dungeon rewards are a small, themed addition to encourage engagement.

2. This relies in fact on a fallacy stemming from ambiguity in the conceptual sphere. For instance claiming that dungeons "already can provide cosmetics via emeralds" treats a techanically possible, but practically inaccessible method as equivalent to meaningful content. This ignores both the proportions of players who can realistically access it and the time required, which could span a very long time. My point is about practical engagement and replayability, not hypothethical edge cases and this proposal achieves that goal safely. So if we would include them, then it is not a sound argument.

 

I agree