Sigmoid.7082

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Black Wolf.7348" said:

> > story and easy mode is not going to change anything. you need to put time and effort into it to get into raids. the start is always the hardest.

> > Biggest example that it wount work is strikes. they made strikes as a go between to get into raids but ppl dont go into raids after. they stick to easy content where 5 ppl can carry if need be.

> > Anet themselves said there is a large gap between the average casual player and the people in the end game content like fractal cms and raids.

> > it all comes down to the will to do it and putting some time and effort into it and you will progress. too many just dont want to.

>

> You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the easy mode being a stairway through which more players will enter the hard mode. You're right that this is not going to work (or at least not to the degree where it would be worth the resources spent). The real gain for raids is somewhere else. You need to stop thinking about hard mode population only, but start to think about the impact of increasing the _total_ raid population (with easy mode included). If a lot of people get interested in easy mode, then the overall raid population would increase, and that might persuade devs that raids are worth spending resources on, after all. And this would benefit hard mode as well.

>

> Strikes, by the way, can't do that - because they are a separate mode. The bigger population in strikes can at best persuade devs to spend more resources on _strikes_. It won't persuade them to get back to making more raids.

>

So that's the fundamental difference between strikes and easy mode ?

What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

> @"Dantert.1803" said:

> Well I hope Anet sees this...75% is a high enough amount to start at least thinking about changes

I'm sure Anet has better measures to gauge what should drive changes than a 100 person vote on a loaded forum poll.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > > @"keenedge.9675" said:

> > > Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

> >

> > How many times?

> > If its less then 10 is it worth the investment?

> > I mean raids are done weekly so a lot of play time for some players if you look to the investment from the company a story mode would not be as good a investment of their limited resources would it?

>

> That's exactly why easy mode should _not_ be looked at in the context of "progression play". The main reason for multiple modes is to make more people interested in the content. In _any_ mode of that content. It should not be vieved just as a way to get people to play the highest difficulty tier - most people interested in th easy mode want that because they _don't_ intend to go up from there.

> Just like many raiders that were completely fine with difficulty up to (and inclding) wing 4 never went past it to a much harder wing 5.

I don't think your reply has much to do with what they said. They aren't talking about progression. They are talking about replayability.

How replayable would story or easy mode be is the question.

This would be a better post of it was about you instead of the current flavour of "steam release. Please change or it will fail."

I would love to see them add a story / easy mode if only to see the following complaints about how "it's not rewarding enough" and "there's no reason to play it more than once" coupled with complaints still about how the harder more rewarding content, that often contains the things people want, is still too hard.

> @"sigur.9453" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > I have yet to see a poll on these forums that isn't inherently biased. I really wish polls were not an option.

>

> hyperbole, but sure, thanks for sharing your opinion with us.

If I were to make this like the polls I see on here it would be:

The polls that appear are incredibly biased. I would like to see fair questions and options for answers since a lot of polls are a waste of time currently, only used to validate the op, and should be properly regulated or removed.

Vs

I'm happy being given no real option in my choices in agreeing with the op or not to the point where my opinion on the matter either agrees or I am wrong / made to look selfish or bad in some way...and I dont mind being wrong all the time or having my valid opinion invalidated.

Yeah. Something along those lines.

Also what is with the forum and loaded poll options...

It's a yes or no questions yet you have made it:

" You agree with me. Well done. We're right and this is best for everyone" Vs "You don't agree with me. You're wrong and selfish".

Way to much "anyone who disagrees with me or my idea is wrong and bad" going on.

And how do you propose to make the content "a little easier"? Lower Hp? Not often when people fail. Less mechanics? Fight loses flavour and just becomes a piñata. Give the players a unique buff? Bit of column a, bit of column b of the previous two.

The current would be normal mode not hard mode.

Also people need to accept that an easier mode will never be as rewarding and some rewards would exclusively be locked out of the easier modes. "Just give the harder modes more rewards /just make the rewards take longer to get" I hear you say. The former putting you back at square 1 and the latter changing the proposition from "I want to be able to do this" to "I want to get something and I don't / can't put the effort in to get it" and I feel is fairly against moving people towards getting better and getting into raids.

Besides you can , quite literally, find a large swath of threads on this topic, some very long, and potentially ever argument that would be in this one, by using the search function. This is by no means a new topic and has been discussed to a point where coming across something new that hasn't already been discussed is pretty rare.

> @"Dark Red Killian.3946" said:

> Excuse me for saying, but Strike Missions are meant to be a bridge to Raids. Requiring LI for a game mode that was meant to introduce less experienced players to step into raids just seems ridiculous. Not to mention LI’s are obtainable only through raids. In my opinion, if you want your squad to have LI, go do raids and leave people in strikes alone. Just my two cents.

Why do they have to leave the content alone playing their way? Why do they have to change the way they play or who they like to play with? How about you leave them alone to enjoy the game how they want to with the people they like to enjoy it with.

"You don't / shouldn't need LI because the content is easy enough / LI are from raids". And? People are free to set whatever requirements they want for their group and are free to enjoy the game however they see fit. Regardless of what the requirement is.

People who ask for LI aren't bothering anyone besides those who feel they belong in those groups.

What's so hard about making your own group to play how you want? If any part the answer is ever that you may not complete the content or things may be too hard for you and that's the reason for this complaint then you aren't complaining about the group's with LI blocking/bothering you..you're complaining about not being carried.

So this is nothing more than a " I want to give Anet money to develop the things I want instead of the things I don't"?

> @"uberkingkong.8041" said:

> > @"Avatar.3568" said:

> > Yeah first 30 games give increased points/loss, if you are high rated, you even loose more and gain less

>

> Nope.

> I was given +50 points, this was on day 1. AND the -50s points.

> Now on day whatever

> all I see is +10 to +16

>

> IF say a good player came along all sudden

> Won 60 games straight, won all straight in the prelims.

>

> He probably wouldn't make top 20 because all he gets is +10s to +16s.

>

> Unfair because day 1 everyone is getting +50s to +100s

>

> This happens any season.

> ...

> Right out the gates there needs to be a cap, like 1600 is the highest, and wait so EVERYONE is getting fair +10 to 16s. Not select few who exploit right away get insane high score and don't play anymore.

>

> Those guys get 30 wins, someone with 50 wins 0 losses a week after NEVER be able to catch up to them, they'd have to win insane amount just to get close.

>

> NEEDS TO BE A CAP on the first week 1600

> NEEDS TO BE A CAP on the second week 1800

> then its fair game.

>

> One of the leagues I saw someone 2200s.

> How???? Because they exploited the glicko system.

>

> **GLICKO system is BROKEN when it starts new league.**

> It needs TIME TO ADJUST ITSELF

> NEEDS TO BE A HARD CAP on first week

I don't think your understand what you're on about and just want to complain about something.

Post is filled with undertones of "I'm not doing as well as I think I should be doing. It's in no way anything to do with me , my choices or my skill..it's the system that's holding me back or other people, who are worse then me, are exploiting it to get ahead of me and preventing me from claiming my rightful place"

You've had it explain to you how it works and the volatility. You ignoring that doesn't make it any less accurate.

> @"Blumpf.2518" said:

>And there are those who see it like we do, but dont want the apologets to go full toxic on them so they say nothing to avoid stress, while silently agreeing to what we say.

I'm the exact opposite. I've been pretty silent and completely disagree with everything you are trying to put forward in this thread. You say people don't want to post in fear of toxicity but they agree with you..it goes both ways...i'm sure there are some people like myself who aren't posting because there is no use in wading into an argument where you get your arguments and point ignored and are called a toxic apologist for not agreeing with the OP.

Its always interesting to see comments from people who have never worked specifically on GW2 how easy something would be and how it should be achievable in a very short time span... Anyways in case people are looking for a short summary give this very old quote a read.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > [Here's a former dev explaining why we can't dye weapons and aren't likely to every be able to](

>

> >> ...the decision to dye armor but not weapons was a design one (in the sense we chose to do it, not that there were insurmountable technical issues), and made pretty early.

> > > * We wanted a much richer dye system for GW2 than we had in GW1.

> > > * This would require some changes to the way that the source art was authored, which increased the complexity (and thus time) of doing so.

> > > * That additional complexity pays off best for armor, which is more visible on-screen than weapons generally are,

> > > * and so (I think) it was decided that we wouldn't bother authoring dye support into the weapon art.

> > > * Eventually this decision would have led to code changes or optimization relying on that assumption, and we arrive at where we are today.

> > >

> > > As with all things, it could be made possible to dye weapons with sufficient code and art resources sunk into it. But **it would be a nontrivial undertaking** (and probably a non-trivial patch download!) to **re-author all the existing source art with appropriate metadata for dye channels.**

>

> (text is verbatim; *emphasis* and bullet points are mine)

>

> tl;dr It's only "possible" in a theoretical sense

> * They decided long before launch that there wasn't enough bang for the buck (effort|time) to dye weapons.

> * The existing game depends on that decision, so changing it would mean re-rendering every single weapon in the game (whether dyeable or not), plus additional QA to make sure weapons work properly with extra 'metadata'.

>

> For what it's worth, a few of the past requests from the old forums

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Weapon-Dye/4662447

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Weapon-dyes/3344528

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dye-able-Weapons/5768082

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Let-us-dye-weapons/4547784

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Weapon-dye-Application/4818242

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Weapons-back-Dye/5090753

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dyes-for-weapons/5836961

> * https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Dye-Channels-on-Legendaries/6521161

> @"Sifu.9745" said:

> SB is a pure condi dmg! ...snip... A power SB ROLF!

If this is what you think I don't think it's metabattle that's outdated or can't be taken seriously.

> @"RazorClawzX.9784" said:

> > @"Fueki.4753" said:

> > I don't think the $team release has anything to do with your wish.

> > People really need to stop trying to shoehorn that release into their wishes.

> >

>

> I think the Steam release is important, we want to give the best impression of the game to new players and the character selection is the first thing you see.

> I'm not asking for something new, I want to hear the iconic music from years ago that others might remember too.

But they aren't wrong. Your request is literally "Please put the old music back. It would be better for the steam release. Why? Because I personally like it more".

It's subjective and has nothing to do with giving the best impression of the game.

That's their entire point. There are so many thread with people saying "you **need** to do this before steam release or else it will go badly!" when the request usually boils down to " I personally think that.." or "I want something and this is an attempt as shoehorning some legitimacy to my claim"

> @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> > > > @"Tayga.3192" said:

> > > > They actually did hotfix patches very frequently right after february patch, believe me or not.

> > > >

> > > > For some reason this slowly died out.

> > >

> > > Skills team got mad at CmC and don't let him do anything on his own anymore. Very biased bad management.

> >

> > CMC is the problem. Wrong vision, lazy implementation and slow follow-ups. What prevents CMC/PvP from making balance split changes adjusting numbers for over 3 month? What happened to 4-6 weeks? Please do not make excuses for tardiness.

>

> No, CmC is not allowed to do his vision because the skills team doesn't let him.

>

The team he is now a part of if I understood the last WvW stream correctly.

People need to stop treating him like he is some infallible messiah.

No minions, no shroud, main hand weapon.

> @"yann.1946" said:

> I would be against it because future especs will be less fun if they have to think about inter espec design

This is one of the reasons it's the way it is. They can do whatever they want and have more freedom when designing since they know nothing about the specs will ever intermingle.

The weapons can be strong, impactful, thematic, and design focused since they will never need to consider it working with any other weapon from another elite spec.

They also don't need to consider things like the reason why thief has only ever gotten 2h weapons on why weaver , which was originally meant to be for HoT but got delayed, was a nightmare to build: dual skills.

> @"Friday.7864" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > I fail to see how the rules are unclear. What is it about them that is unclear to you? Specifically?

>

> Would we be discussing this topic every month in a new thread if things were clear and/or taken care of properly?

> No. End of discussion.

Considering the topics are usually started by 1 person over and over...and repeatedly get closed because they have been answered....yes.

> @"Luthan.5236" said:

> I don't think it is needed. You can play the entire game without such a feature. Just could mean slower killing some enemies - if you don't optimize dps. But that is an "elitist" thing and could lead to hate towards players that want to play for fun instead.

>

> And the elitists can already have their small own groups and use 3rd-party addons.

Why do people always insinuate that because a group is doing things differently or may use a dps meter that they are not playing for fun?

And the "elitists" already do play in their small groups. But there is a reason you see more complaints about " I got kicked from a group due to my performance, why can people spy on me" compared to "I got kicked from a group because I mentioned their DPS wasn't good enough".

> @"Leinhart.2981" said:

> IMO, it should be better for the community (the toxicity in raids I mean), to just forbid any DPS meter OR to add one that's allows the user to see only his own DPS in order to progress.

Please explain how it would be better.

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> Adding in tools directly in game at least removes questions from players of if they are allowed. Broadcasting additional data downstream increases packet size which potentially increases latency. What's better for the game? Performance or meters? Personally use Arcdps but would prefer that they improve game speed by not transmitting extra data to the client if it could be helped since it would further improve game performance for all players. Now creating tools to help a player measure their own output would make sense since their client should be receiving their own data back and a meter could act as a tool to measure one's own output. But measuring it for others, no. Mostly people use DPS meters for negative effect.

There is no extra data that's being transmitted? Everything being read by DPS meters is stuff that's already being sent to you and everyone near by...and always has been.

So saying performance or meters is just a bad argument since the game is sending and using the data already based on its core functions. Tracking boons, conditions, removals, damage etc etc is always being done and being sent to everyone nearby since that's how people interact.

The client isn't just recieving "their own data", which again as a concept **doesn't exist since it's all public,globally available, and in no way private**, it's literally receiving game state data from everyone near by.

Also saying "most people do X with y and it's always negative".. you can't really use that as any form of valid point, besides a flimsy attempt to push an agenda, because you literally have no idea how many people use it and how. I would personally also say it's demonstrably false since the switch to quantifiable class measures instead of arbitrary rules, "no X class"/"need this much ap" etc etc , was mostly due to tools like arc DPS.

> @"Eugchriss.2046" said:

> > @"Kodama.6453" said:

> > For example, someone suggested in the past that holosmith should lose the entire toolbelt and replace it with the photon forge mechanic. They would have to buff photon forge by unrealistic amounts to make that trade off worth it, since holosmith would lose tons of skills by losing the toolbelt skills. Some utility skills on engineer are even solely taken because of the associated toolbelt skill, like rifle turret.

> Another (and easier to implement) alternative is to make holo loose 1 utility skill (and 1 toolbelt skill, but get its F5 back). That way holo will keep the core toolbelt mechanic, and at the same stop being a core upgrade.

>

>

Or do none of this and look at the entry / exit of forge cooldown and how much heat the skills generate?

> @"Astyrah.4015" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > You already know the answer to this. We have told you in the many threads that you created on this topic. Behavior that violates the ToS is Anet's call. As players, our only responsibility and recourse is to report the potential violation and move on.

>

> he created another thread a couple of hours ago... guess what happened to it? :)

Song worry we will see another one in a few days.

Who would have thought that speccing into damage instead of sustain means you do damage instead.

Wild!