Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25730832-20150715144558/@comment-26410416-20150716112913

Ar-cen-ciel wrote: OatMealFriend wrote: If you would quote where I said it, I would appreciate it... since I can't find it and if it was interpreted in that way, it was not intended Suppose I would: OatMealFriend wrote: In my opinion the devs have to work to make the game enjoyable for the highest amount of people (from novices to veterans) Your "preach of utilitarian approach" could be interpreted as that, somehow ignoring the "not equal rewards" part. OatMealFriend wrote: By using this, yes!, the previous event wasn't well balanced. In fact, some maps were cleared in hard with low level ships, that should not be possible unless we are talking about masochists with the resources and patience to challenge tests above their expected performance. And food for thought, don't they deserve too a good reward for achieving so much with so little? You intend to convey that the "hard" difficulty is supposed to hard enough to blockade novices, but it was somehow interpreted as the other way around.

The current 3 options limit too much and can't accommodate properly the varied user base. It's not too much, it's too board. Just in case the anon (perhaps intentionally) misinterpret this again.

Seeng the quoted sections I feel like I was clear with my ideas, and it seems you agree with that too, since it requires to ignore the context or intentionally misinterpret what was written... well, there is also the chance that I was confused with another poster, specially considering that someone did say something like that.

With that said, I agree with you in the last part, the best way to describe my point and overall problem is to say that the 3 options are too broad, not too limiting.