I disagree with this sentiment. Let’s consider 2 hypothetical task systems A and B, and see how they impact three different players I’ll call Allen, Barbera, and Calvin.
A = long tasks (20 invades) with modest rewards. Does not cycle.
B = easy tasks (change armor) with low rewards. Does cycle.
Allen = plays GoW 3 times a week, for 30 min to an hour.
Barbera = plays GoW every day, for 90 minutes.
Calvin = quit his job when GoW released, and plays 6-10 hours a day.
Under system A, our three players have the following experience:
Allen chops through his tasks in parallel - finishing all three tasks about once a week. Total rewards = 3 per week.
Barbera finishes about one task a day, on average. Total rewards = 7 per week.
Calvin finishes all three tasks every day. Total rewards = 21 per week.
So Barbera plays about twice as much as Allen, and gets about twice the rewards.
Calvin plays about 4x to 6x as much as Barbera, but gets only 3x the rewards.
This tends to encourage Allen to play a bit more, and gives Calvin diminishing returns for his inhuman efforts.
Under system B, our three players have the following experience:
Allen finishes between 1 and 2 tasks per day he plays. Total rewards = 5 per week.
Barbera finishes 6 tasks per day. Total rewards = 36 per week.
Calvin finishes 40+ tasks per day. Total rewards = 280+ per week.
Now Barbera gets about 7x what Allen gets, and Calvin gets about 8x what Barbera gets. (Calvin gets more than 50x what Allen gets!)
This means that Allen falls impossibly far behind, and Calvin pulls impossibly far ahead. In order to prevent Calvin from breaking the system, rewards need to be so small that Allen gets effectively nothing.
Ideally the economic rewards push both types of extreme players into the center. Calvin always wants more work & more rewards, but giving him what he asks for ultimately throws the system off-balance and makes the game feel too punishing.