yann.1946
-
Posts
996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by yann.1946
-
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > > If you want a *chill, no req group of first timers* then by all means: create the squad in lfg and wait for the people with similar goals to join you. For some reason there are people that seem to think the weight of organizing their time should be on other players or anet.
> > > Ah, but that's exactly because for most people that want chill groups, once they end up having to organize it such a group _stops_ being chill. Thus, organizing a chill group with LFG becomes a contradiction.
> >
> > I fail to see how creating a group in lfg suddenly contradicts a "chill" playstyle preferences or no req raiding.
> There's a major difference betweenjust posting a "chill" group in LFG, and posting a group in LFG and ensuring the run will be a success. First can be chill - but only until the first wipe. Second is rarely chill, unless you are already heavily experienced in raiding - which the people you talk about definitely aren't.
>
Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping?
> > From my point of view I'd say it's not a case of "contradicting" anything, but probably... laziness or even a bit of entitlement (YOU will organize my fun for me!).
> From your point of view, maybe. It's _not_ you having an issue here, though. What would be laziness if done by you, doesn't have to be the same when it happens to someone else.
>
>
>
>
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > You're missing a small detail though. Maybe squads who ask for only one get filled way faster, so they don't appear for the same time as others.
> That was the case during dungeons era, where people complained about speedrun/elitist LFGs dominating the content, not realizing that casual LFGs just tended to disappear very fastm and were really easy to overlook.
>
> Not saying this is definitely the case here, but that's still a good example why anecdotal evidence is not worth all that much.
Yes, it's the same reason high requirement lfgs and raidsellers stay way longer and seem overrepresented
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > That still is very unreliable method. Not only it is based on anecdotal data (no one in reality is going to sit refreshing lfg 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to see what is really happening), but it also completely ignores statics. And we lack the data to say how LFG compares to statics in participation.
> >
> > Although i agree - there aren't likely many players that run shiverpeaks only. Although there are probably other reasons for that, than just the difficulty.
>
> Shiverpeak Pass is just an example, the other easy Strike Missions are in the same situation. I don't think there is any reason to form a static just to run Shiverpeak Pass or only the lower tier Strike Missions. You don't really need to check LFG all day, just enough through prime time and remember you it's a comparison, if every time I open LFG I see groups forming for "all strike mission" runs and none for just single Strike Missions (other than some achievement runs), I don't really need to check 24/7.
You're missing a small detail though. Maybe squads who ask for only one get filled way faster, so they don't appear for the same time as others.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > This would go against their statement when raids first came out if they were to "depreciate" it.
> > > Yes. It would. So? It's clear their original approach did **not** work out. If they're going to keep to it, it means no new raids ever. Is that what you want?
> >
> > You’re assuming that them not making earlier raids easier is the issue.
> No. I am assuming that if something is obviously wrong, and it's clear that the matters don't go in good direction, not doing anything but just continuing on the previous course just because we're sticking to some completely arbitrary prior decision is not the wisest choice.
>
> Original design decisions should never be considered sacrosanct and completely unviolable - especially when it's clear that something somewhere in those original designs is not working right. Sometimes things need to change.
>
But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected.
The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, is
ignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > Then this layer of difficulty serves no purpose as gateway or training mechanism for raids.
> > > > Yes. Indeed, the usefulness of such mode for training, while existing, should never be considered as an important factor. It would be less important, than, for example, segregating "players who have different approaches and goals for a mode", so they won't end meeting in the same group.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You nicely skipped the second part of the response where I commented on what another poster suggested that even an easy mode might very well attract players with different goals, which makes the entire approach of segregation meaningless. Besides splitting the player base even further.
> > Nah, currently this is a problem, because it's simply not possible for those two groups to play separately. One of those groups can indeed try to filter out the seccond, but the other cannot. That's because, in order to play separately from the first group, and still succeed, they would have to _become_ first group first.
> >
>
> Which is the same as saying: in order to succeed at raids, one would have to adopt a raiding mindset and approach. Agreed.
>
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > In easy mode those two types of groups could play alongside each other without too much interference. Most people would simply avoid the training runs that would try to do all mechanics - the same way most players ignored the speedclear dungeon runs in the past. And the same way speedclear runners ignored the "casual run" and "all welcome" dungeon LFGs.
> >
> > And no, it would not split the playerbase further. That split already exists, no new splintering would happen. The "training" groups from easy mode would eventually go up to normal and join the main raider community (perhaps being more prepared for it now, and with lower chances of running face-first into some experience that woudl make them run away). The non-training players would still remain separate from raiding community. Nothing about this split would change.
> >
>
> That's a lot of assumption on your part. I'm just going to say:
> - assuming there is enough players who would play easy mode raids is just that: an assumption
> - which ties strait into rewards, because easier content in this game often means less exclusive rewards, unless you want to syphon players away from the normal mode which would again be a detriment to regular raids
> - I've seen just as toxic "non" raid players in open world content, more even because there is literally no reason to be toxic there. You yourself often bring the argument that there is this huge divide in player skill. No matter how easy content is, there will always be those who find it challenging in this game. Some of the most toxic individuals I have met in this game were semi competent players, some times strait up terrible, who assumed they were far better then they are.
>
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > In the past there was already constraint on the resources devoted to raid content, which in some of our opinions is the ACTUAL reason for this content decline. Just like Spvp, WvW and fractals, which have seen similar decline due to lack of attention and content. Spreading the same amount of resources across multiple difficulties would have meant even less content in terms of actual raids OR requiring more developer attention, which in turn would have meant less content in other areas, most likely other PvE.
> > >
> > > So no, it's not a win-win especially if we consider that as some have pointed out, easy raids might not even address some of the issues which players argue for: most notably a better way to enter the content.
> > >
> > > If this is about only easier access to the rewards, everyone can have their own stance on it, but it is something far different than "we need easy raids for training purposes".
> > >
> > > As far as the current situation and if there is no development resources allocated, then sure, any resources spent on any part of the mode might be in some way beneficial. That's a very different outset than the past though and again, requires resources be pulled from other content.
> > Well, yeah, now it's way too late for that probably, especially seeing as they seem to have some major resource problems at the moment. As for the past though - sure, we can't be sure that it would have worked. But we already know that jealously protecting those resources then **didn't** work. The way of thinking that was too afraid to use some of those resources to try something new in order to potentially save raids was the one that ensured that no attempt was ever made, and thus made raids' demise _certain_.
> >
> > Yes, any attempt to fix raids would have required taking some risk. It's just that "playing it safe", and avoiding all the risk led to the path where _all_ was lost.
>
> I find this entire argument so disingenuous (not you specifically but the entire argument that easy mode raids would have beneficially affected this situation almost as though it were guaranteed).
>
> Where were the big demands to add more developers to raid content in the past? All I recall is players who enjoy and open world content constantly demanding more open world content, especially during the content drought which also hit raids, especially during that time. Why did no one make the argument then to delay open world and season content even more in favor of raid and easy mode raid development? Simple, no one dared make that demand because they would have been crucified by the open world zealots. As a matter of fact, I would have been against this redistribution of resources myself because I never wanted this game to become more raid centric, and I've stated as much in the past multiple times.
>
> Why is it that the niche game modes, which already see far less developer attention, are supposed to give? The time frame between raid wings was close to 1 year towards the end. Delaying that content even more would have most likely lead to an even faster demise of the player base without additional resources devoted and that is an assumption which can actually be supported in things happening in this game and via basic logic. You can pretend as much as you want that the potential "more players" which this could have drawn might have halted that flow-off, but you have little in way of substantiating this assumption. What we know for certain, and this has been evident in ALL content in this game no matter the mode: lack of developer attention and new content leads to player loss for each and every area of the game. This has been and is visible in Spvp, WvW, fractals, raids, open world, living world, story, etc. EVERYWHERE!
>
> This entire notion that something might have been different or better is just a baseless assumption based on the premise that more players might be interested in raid content or that the assets used could be reused. They could have just as well made single players story missions with the raid bosses and that would have likely been a wiser asset investment than easy mode raids IF asset share was of a major concern.
>
> Players who want to raid in this game are raiding, or at least the vast majority is. If sharing assets with other content is of primary concern, there is a ton of stuff which could be done which would be more beneficial than easy mode raids. Harping on half truths from the past because the overall games population is in decline in order to prove some point or make some type of assumption of how things could have been is just baseless speculation, especially when unfounded in recent game developments.
I completely agree with the last part you said. But I feel this is more a consequence of people wanting their biases confirmed. Someone wants easy mode and sees raids decline so it must be the lack of easy mode, not the plethora of other problems the game in general has.
Although maybe it's more the mindset of some people that niche content is intrinsically bad.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > As i see it, there's nothing wrong about the _idea_ of rotations, but there's indeed quite a lot of problems with how this got implemented in GW2.
> > >
> >
> > You need to understand what a rotation is. Practically any way that a player commonly uses their skills is a rotation. Mashing their skills is a rotation. Removing rotations is practically impossible.
> Then we understand the term differently. For me, random mashing buttons is not a rotation. It is random mashing buttons. Rotation for me is having a certain sequence of skills you need to follow in the right order. The alternative would be a dynamic system, where you use skills according to the current situation and certain priorities, and have no set rotation to follow.
>
This is actually a super interesting point to me,
Doesn't a dynamic system eventually lead to rotations?
And gw2 system is also pretty dynamic (most things are priority based and the rotation is just the optimum of those priorities)
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > As an important note, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would
> Problem happens when you go too much with the latter. As such, any incentives to see the content should ve relatively shallow and _not_ require massive time investments. Just enough to realize whether you like the content or not.
> For example, WvW's Gift of Battle (as well as some WvW unique reward tracks) are mostly okay fo this, as they do allow for very shallow level of participation, but still high enough for you to "get your feet wet" and see the content for yourself before deciding whether to continue or not. Same with SPvP reward tracks. Both WvW and SPvP are not. They _would_ have been okay if PvE offered a mainstream version, instead of being raid-locked.
>
It is a difficult balance though, i guess the only way to know which amount is acceptable is using data we haven't acces to.
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > The first option solves the problem, by changing the gameplay style of raids. This is not likely to be met with good reception by people that _do_ like how raids are currently.
> >
> > I agree that this is not a good idea because it removes a specific content type from the game. So it forces people who enjoy the content type to leave the content.
> Indeed.
>
> > > Second option would satisfy current players, but does not solve the problem at all. It just makes it less visible for the raiders. It is also hard to implement (as it's impossible to easily quantify player skill), so runs the heavy risk of being either too weak (and thus ineffective), or too strong (and thus preventing a lot of potential new raiders from trying them)
> >
> > Maybe we shouldn't create a filter based on skill level ( as thats not the actual problem their). But some filter based on what people would enjoy. Although i can't see a good way to do this.
> That would be the third option - the incentives.
>
the question is if their are other ways then incentive.
Say i construct some rpg. And in the beginning i have a few missions where the player tanks, a few where he bursts and a few where he supports, then giving different missions to do it in different ways so the player can get to the end of the story while doing the things they enjoy.
Their doesn't need to be an incentive for them to go along the pad they like.
> > > Third option removes the problem, by removing the incentives (either by removing them outright, or by making them available through other avenues, that are fit for players that like different playstyles). Again, some raiders may get angry
> >
> > And it doesn't help the get people who would enjoy raids into raids part.
> See my first comment about shallow dipping. I don't believe getting a few players into raids via rewards is worth giving a finger to a probably much bigger group of players that will end up very much disliking the whole experience (and likely not even get the things they wanted)
>
I won't really make a comment on whether its wrong atm. we don't have the data to make a conclusive truth either way.
i do want to say that i don't think the size of the group which feels discomfort matters. Say we have something which 25 percent really enjoys but 75 percent only slightly dislikes, it might still be in the general advantage of the game.
See jp for example.
Also sometimes theirs can be a positive merit to a player to including things even though their not directly fun for that player. As an example jp's helped to increase my enjoyement of gw2 even though i personnally didn't like them. It made a friend of me start playing.
>
> > > Fourth option is sort of a variation of the third one, that works by offering several different modes of the content, that are designed for players with different playstyles. Notice, though, that for it to work, you would need to make the stuff non-raiders go into raids for available also through those other, "not true raid" modes. Or at least enough of that stuff to heavily minimize the problem. This option also will make at least some raiders angry.
> > >
> >
> > Do you think making all raid rewards sellable be a good way to make the rewards available to everyone. Or do you think it would create friction as "raiders control the prices"?
> It works for ghostly infusions, and for dhuum throne, so why not? At least it would be _some_ kind of solution.
>
The reason that i question it is because making everything available for gold makes the game feel more uniform. I don't have an informed opinion on this topic though.
> >
> > > As you can see, there's no option that would be considered good to everyone. There would be some pushback no matter what you picked. I can only tell you that any attempt to make bigger percentage of player population start raiding _without_ changing anything about raids themselves is going to be met with at best a minimal, unnoticeable effect. While possibly causing some fallout elsewhere.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe the solutions are more subtle. It is entirely possible to change behavior patrons of groups of people. (Propaganda is an example of this).
> It serves mainly to reinforce existing behaviours or introduce new ones. It doesn't work all that well when you try to change already ingrained patterns though. Meaning, it might work for children and players completely new to genre, but is unlikely to work on older players. Especially on those that have been in this game for years already. Additionally, you'd probably need to ensure they won't be exposed to any conflicting influences (for example, from RL or _other_ games). As such, i wouldn't consider it a viable option.
>
> > > Technically true, but those very same people always had the option of going for raids directly. For such people Strikes _aren't_ any better to start in than Raids are. The barriers that prevent people from raiding are the same barriers that prevent the same people from participating in more difficult strikes. Players that try Whispers and Boneskinner and decide they like what they see would have the very same reaction after trying out Cairn or VG. And it would _not_ have been any harder for them to do so.
> > >
> > > basically, for those players, Strikes are _not_ a stairway. They are a _detour_.
> > >
> > As i said in the beginning of this post, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would. So a detour isn't that bad of an idea if people wouldn't make the shorter route because of a pletora of different reasons.
> Then perhaps one should think of a way to point them the way _without_ making a lot of other players heavily displeased. That's a telemarketer level of advertising. Noone likes telemarketers.
>
Possibly, why are people displeased with strikes in general. i haven't been following that debate very closly.
-
As an important note, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > For the most part, people that attempt raids do know (or learn very fast) whether this is something they might like. One of the problems we run into is that there are people that dislike the gameplay style raids are designed for, but _do_ like/desire some other things that are there. Be it story elements, or plain loot.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but how would you address that in a reasonable way.
> I'll quote part of one of my earlier posts, because it is relevant here:
> > Well, the point i am making is that you _won't_ change those players. Most of them either don't want to improve, or are incapable of doing so. As such, there are four realistic options here:
> > - adjust the content to those weaker players, so their presence is no longer a problem
> > - somehow prevent those weaker players from even trying to join, so their presence will no longer be a problem
> > - make it so those players can still join, but (unless they aer interested in the raiding gameplay style itself) are not interested in doing so
> > - somehow make it so the players of those differing playstyles aren't grouped together, by utilizing multiple difficulty modes
> Notice for clarity that "the problem" we're talking about now (people being incentivized to play raids, while not liking the gameplay raids offer) is slightly different than "the problem" i was mentioning then (which was about toxocity resulting from mixing players of different playstyles and expectations in the same content). For the remaining part, when i would be referring to "the problem", i would be talking about the former, not the latter.
>
> The first option solves the problem, by changing the gameplay style of raids. This is not likely to be met with good reception by people that _do_ like how raids are currently.
I agree that this is not a good idea because it removes a specific content type from the game. So it forces people who enjoy the content type to leave the content.
> Second option would satisfy current players, but does not solve the problem at all. It just makes it less visible for the raiders. It is also hard to implement (as it's impossible to easily quantify player skill), so runs the heavy risk of being either too weak (and thus ineffective), or too strong (and thus preventing a lot of potential new raiders from trying them)
Maybe we shouldn't create a filter based on skill level ( as thats not the actual problem their). But some filter based on what people would enjoy. Although i can't see a good way to do this.
> Third option removes the problem, by removing the incentives (either by removing them outright, or by making them available through other avenues, that are fit for players that like different playstyles). Again, some raiders may get angry
And it doesn't help the get people who would enjoy raids into raids part.
> Fourth option is sort of a variation of the third one, that works by offering several different modes of the content, that are designed for players with different playstyles. Notice, though, that for it to work, you would need to make the stuff non-raiders go into raids for available also through those other, "not true raid" modes. Or at least enough of that stuff to heavily minimize the problem. This option also will make at least some raiders angry.
>
Do you think making all raid rewards sellable be a good way to make the rewards available to everyone. Or do you think it would create friction as "raiders control the prices"?
> As you can see, there's no option that would be considered good to everyone. There would be some pushback no matter what you picked. I can only tell you that any attempt to make bigger percentage of player population start raiding _without_ changing anything about raids themselves is going to be met with at best a minimal, unnoticeable effect. While possibly causing some fallout elsewhere.
>
Maybe the solutions are more subtle. It is entirely possible to change behavior patrons of groups of people. (Propaganda is an example of this).
> > And aren't strikes a good thing in regard to informing people on whether they enjoy the content type?
> > People who don't like strikes because of the mechanics (whisper) or group dynamic is more likely to like raids.
> > While people who hate those aspects don't like these aspects probably won't like raids
> Technically true, but those very same people always had the option of going for raids directly. For such people Strikes _aren't_ any better to start in than Raids are. The barriers that prevent people from raiding are the same barriers that prevent the same people from participating in more difficult strikes. Players that try Whispers and Boneskinner and decide they like what they see would have the very same reaction after trying out Cairn or VG. And it would _not_ have been any harder for them to do so.
>
> basically, for those players, Strikes are _not_ a stairway. They are a _detour_.
>
>
As i said in the beginning of this post, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would. So a detour isn't that bad of an idea if people wouldn't make the shorter route because of a pletora of different reasons.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > Do you think we could reduce toxicity by informing people more about when they would enjoy the game mode vs not.
> >
> > People who don't find pvp enjoyable don't try to play pvp in general for example.
> > I think it's important to make people aware about what parts of the game are for them and which parts aren't.
> People that don't like pvp don't play it usually because they feel no need to do so. That's because usually there's nothing there they could not get by any other means. Anytime this happened to be not true (gift of battle, attempts to do some LS parts in WvW, legendary backpack, etc.) it generally always ended up badly, with toxicity levels rising all around.
> Still, why do you think there are complains in SPvP about AFKer leechers? I can tell you that those people are definitely _not_ ones that are there because they like the content.
>
True, but I said informing people better about what parts of the game they enjoy, because it's not only about keeping people out who wouldn't enjoy the content, but getting the people in who would, but don't think they would.
> For the most part, people that attempt raids do know (or learn very fast) whether this is something they might like. One of the problems we run into is that there are people that dislike the gameplay style raids are designed for, but _do_ like/desire some other things that are there. Be it story elements, or plain loot.
>
Sure, but how would you address that in a reasonable way.
> Additionally, telling people they probably won't like raids and it's not content for them was the _last_ thing Anet ever wanted to do. For the whole of GW2's raids' history they were doing a lot trying to funnel as much of the normal, core players into them as possible. Even raids were effectively cancelled, Anet didn't stop doing that. If you remember, their whole explanation for strikes was all about doing exactly this.
>
We'll where talking about what would help, not what anet would do.
And aren't strikes a good thing in regard to informing people on whether they enjoy the content type?
People who don't like strikes because of the mechanics (whisper) or group dynamic is more likely to like raids.
While people who hate those aspects don't like these aspects probably won't like raids
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > While I agree with the assessment, let's rephrase that one part a little please:
> > > _you either need to go into groups **with some expectations**, or risk it with a group that will probably fail and then start spreading the blame all around_
> >
> > Yes, there are expectations. Yes, those can pertain to setup or a certain performance. Yes, this can mean having to adapt to a groups desire.
> >
> > No, those expectations are often not high, at least not in all groups.
> Those expectations being "not high" is extremely subjective. They may not be high to you. They are too high for a vast majority of GW2 players, though.
>
> > Please keep an objective perspective on the broad spectrum of groups here.
> From an objective perspective, the expectations are way above the level of an average gw2 player. There's a reason why people keep prefiltering players through using different LFG requirements. It's because they _know_, that without doing that they run the very high risk of not getting the clear run they wanted.
>
> > Not every group treats players like that 200 Dhuum KP static one. Especially groups aimed at newer players or inexperienced players have often a LOT more leeway.
> They do have a lot more leeway. But they also tend to _fail_. And, as i pointed out, failure (especially repeated failure) also generates tension. Not to mention, nobody's really interested in failing in the first place.
>
> > If players who are interested in raids actually interacted with groups intending to introduce those players to raids, a lot of issues would disappear.
> Sure, if most players were interested in having to do a lot of training before attempting to clear a content succesfully, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And raids would be the baseline, not the the high-end content. It just so happens however that most players do _not_ play this way. And there's absolutely nothing you, me, devs, or anyone else can do to change that.
>
> Frankly, the "toxicity" problem never really affected the players with the raider mentality. Those players are, for the most part, always capable of finding the necessary info on their own. The whole issue is caused by the fact that raids are being attempted also by the players whose playing style is inimical to the one raids are designed for. And that is caused by raids having stuff in them (not necessarily the same for everyone) that is interesting on their own to those players (And by Anet trying to funnel them into that content).
>
> We may spend a ton of time trying to put the blame on one or the other part of the community, but that will not actually solve anything. Nothing will get better that way - at most, the relations between different parts of the community will become even worse than they already are. If you want to fix the problem, you have to accept that some people play differently than the others, and craft the solution based on this. Or, look at what must be done to fix it and decide, that for you the cure is worse than the disease.
>
>
Do you think we could reduce toxicity by informing people more about when they would enjoy the game mode vs not.
People who don't find pvp enjoyable don't try to play pvp in general for example.
I think it's important to make people aware about what parts of the game are for them and which parts aren't.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > So as a question: What are you're suggestions to reduce this problems.
> The only way to do that is to reduce the reasons why tensions happen in the first place. This happens when the group does not match the expectations some (or _all_) of the players in that group have. And the primary expectation is always "i want a group with which i willl be able to clear the content without any major problems". The more likely it will be for the (semi-)randomly matched 10 LFG players to fulfill that expectation, the lower the toxicity is going to get.
>
> Of course, the consequences of actions leading to that end might not be all that desirable for raiders.
>
> Spoiler: this mostly worked in dungeons, because they were much, much easier. It isn't going to work for raids though, unless you will somehow find a way to separate players with different expectations in such a way that will make all their expectations able to be fulfilled, without conflicting with each other. Which is not possible in raids as they are now, and to solve would require introducing some things many raiders would definitely not be comfortable with.
I wonder if that really true. In essence the perception of toxicity has become so ingrained in how people perceive raids that I don't think decreasing toxicity in a raids would help much.
Did the idea that dungeons where full of toxic players decrease because they became easier? Or because interest wained on them?
-
> @"Nephalem.8921" said:
> > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:
> > Should ANet not do something about that? Or is it the community that should change its opinion towards "bad" stat combo's? Technically, it **is** possible to achieve victory with every stat combo, I'm sure. Right?!?
> >
> What should they do? delete bad combos? As a power dps you want power, prec, ferocity. The only stats helping your role. As condi condi dmg expertise, prec, power with grieving in some situations.
> Soldier is helping nobody except yourself leeching the content.
Tbh, marauder isn't such a decreas in dps. And an argument can be made for it to be effective.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> At some point a trend appeared where more grind-type achievements started to get included into the meta, and the grind on those grindy achievements also started to increase. Additionally, the leeway for completing the meta seemed to get smaller and smaller (or perhaps the number of achievements i considered too annoying that were required to finish the meta increased). At some point (somewhere during early S4, i think?) i didn't manage to finish the meta before next chapter arrived. Due to this i didn't feel as pressured to do the meta for that next chapter, which means the situation repeated. This continued, until i realized i haven't finished the meta on _any_ of the chapters since that, and my meta completion levels get lower and lower every chapter. As such, i wasn't as annoyed by strike requirements for the meta as Vayne was - by that point i have already practically gave up on completing it anyway.
>
> I find it kind of funny that Anet, increasing the achievement grind in order to keep players longer in the game, in my case caused an exactly opposite effect - i'm now spending far less time on those achievements than before.
Did the fact that you can get the "reward" without completing the Meta help?
-
While I agree with the general idea that conviences in general negatively impact social interaction.
Their is not really a solution in removing gameplay mechanics. You can't really reduce convinience without pissing of the playerbase.
-
> @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > @"Katary.7096" said:
> > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said:
> > > From your perspective this is true. This is not everyone's perspective.
> > We do not need everyone's perspective. We need the perspective of the people interested in playing raid content, which will be a small section of the playerbase, because raid content is by default niche content.
>
> OUCH hold on here ... this is EXACTLY the reason raids died ... you actually SHOULD be advocating that most people's perspective should be considered. Raid content is NOT niche by default ... it's niche IN THIS GAME as a result of ignoring a significant portion of the community ... it didn't have to be this way. I mean, it's pretty weird to claim that raids are niche content in MMO's ... everyone playing an MMO should have the expectation of teaming people at SOME point.
>
Actually no that is not why raids died. Their is a multitude of reasons why they are in the state they are in.
And their is nothing more dangerous then to try to make a specific content type appeal to everyone. (The same problems appears when they make LS bosses more challenging for example).
Better way to word it is that challenging/group/pvm content will always be nich
> > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said:
> > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:
> > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said:
> > > > It's the same circular argument for 5 years. I say my opinion, and 30 raiders hand wave it with the specific things I said don't work for me as hand waves. It's not just as simple as don't join hardcore groups or make your own casual group. Virtually every group requires specific builds, so joining "like minded" groups isn't a good option. The content very much isn't tuned for "chill groups" so listing also isn't a good option. If it even fills in a reasonable time frame, you're still just looking at endless wipe misery and rage quits. A good 90% of GW2 players are stuck in this blind spot that the raiders can't see. There's so many little things that the raiding community sees as routine that very much are not, and they feel that criticism of raiding is only at the smaller subset of things that they see as challenging. No one is asking you to change your perspective, I just want other perspectives to be considered. The game would be a lot better for it. You're not seeing the bigger picture of why it doesn't work for so many people. Anything you can say about why I am wrong and raids are fine I've tried to make it work, and 20 more things you haven't thought of on top of it. The solution I want is to sequester the current raiding culture away in it's own LFG section like the vile hive of 15 acronym party names and rage fueled GAMERS that run them that is T4 fractals, and give us people who don't like engaging with that access to the content after 5 years waiting. You're not going to sway me from wanting that.
> > >
> > > There was a guy in gw2 facebook who made an guild for ppl that arw new to raids and wants to play off meta builds. Sorry i cannot give more details as my memory is a bit pepega.
> >
> > It's just not what I am talking about at all. There are fundamental problems with the raiding experience that can not be solved with the "just do X thing and it is fine". It is not helpful in any way to say go scour Facebook if you want to wear soldier armor in raid. That's not how I play anyway, and is not the issue that prevents me from enjoying raids.
>
> This nails it. Raid issues aren't solved by telling people how to play, especially if the raid implementation doesn't consider how most of the players want to play in the first place. I'm going to remind everyone that raids are not aimed at casual players; it's the most un-casual friendly content in this game. If raids were not designed to be PUGed (I agree with that assessment) then raids were NOT designed with the casual player experience in mind. The problem with raids isn't a website that shares information; it's that the content implementation doesn't match the majority of the playerbase play style/demographic.
-
> @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:
> > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".
> > > > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.
> > > > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.
> > >
> > > That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".
> > >
> > > While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.
> >
> > We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.
> > If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)
>
> Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.
> And btw I'm not sure what's the point of this response. In my eyes it's basically: "I can answer to what you said, but I won't, so let me know if you want me to answer". Am I supposed to ask you for the links (hopefully related to gw2) or something? How about next time you want to answer to what I wrote, you just... do it?
>
> Also adding "of course most top end players of a game know these things" makes me feel you didn't understand the post I've answered to and subsequentially didn't understand my response. But I can be wrong because for some reason you've decided not to include anything you're talking about so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to throw blind guesses here or not.
I'm sorry , the reason i asked is because actually responding in detail will get quite of topic.
Examples where games lie on purpose is:
-in some shooters the first shot of the ai will always miss.
-In strategy games the probabilities that are written are probably lies because most people are bad at statistics, and interpret a 90 percent as a 100 percent.
-In gw2 you can land on air while doing a jumping puzzle because the platform is slightly bigger then the visual suggests.
-Here someone wo talks about gamedesign and why it happens:
The thing is, i don't agree specifically that the trinity is an example of this. But i merely wanted to point out that lying to players to make them feel stronger/competent is standard practice procedure. Whether it get used a lot is something i don't know thoug
-
> @"Yggranya.5201" said:
> > @"WindBlade.8749" said:
> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:
> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:
> > > > > > @"CashCow.9548" said:
> > > > > > I want raid rewards with out ever raiding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please, Anet. I am so casual and not really interested in playing your game but pleaase give me the rewards anyways, I insist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, imagine the horror if every player could go through something that was designed for solo and scaled for groups so everyone could participate in the content. I can imagine it now... Wait, i can't see any downside to this. Except then people couldn't boast about clearing the "difficult" thing, again.
> > > >
> > > > Group content needs people to participate in an actual group. Opening some kind of "solo modes" for group content pretty much kills group content, because usually it will be easier and faster (and preeeeeetty sure that's what people vouching for it also want). This is an mmorpg, having some group content is usually desirable by default.
> > > > Here, "found" a downside for you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want rewards for completing the content, then you need to learn and complete the content. If you don't want to complete the content -for literally any relevant or irrelevant reason you're capable of comming up with- then you'll get no rewards for that content. I don't see anything bad about that tbh.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Still wonder why people are so obsessed with rewards when there is no gear treadmill. Let me guess: they stuff sells really well for a lot of gold?
> > > >
> > > > I'll need you to explain how is this supposed to be some kind of great catch. Are you upset that people are able to learn/play through content and use (or sell) their drops as they see fit or what is this sentence about?
> > >
> > > You know, i know it's true and i will have to say this: If people play group content only because it's enforced, that just proves that nobody actually WANTS to group up with random mooks, which is obvious. If they could without any extra benefit, then people could play with their friends and/or solo when they feel like it, because there is no requirement for it. If they want to suffer through other people and their requirements and all that rot, then that is also their own choice and they can live with the consequences. Only downside is game developers obsessions and lack of thinking outside the hunderd times recycled old box.
> > >
> > > Since when is it a good idea to force the developers preferred playstyle down the players throat? Because the other games did it first? Yeah, great reasoning that.
> > > If there wasn't any story in the raids then i couldn't care less, but since there is, why is it shoved into that steaming pile of garbage? Because someone else did it, and that means anet and the rest just recycled the same old kitten, as per the usual. The same old, same old...
> > >
> > > Your question seems pointless, as the answer is pretty self-explanatory. You don't want the stuff to be widely available, because that would cut into your profit and/or you flaunting it around would ring rather hollow as it's more widely available. Really, i don't care about your precious stuff, you can keep it all. Can't speak for others though.
> >
> > Yea, except that just the gamestyle you prefer, a lot of people do raids because it's hard and engaging in a group content. It's not the raider fault if other people don't want to do "hard" group content together and so have less supply, raids profits is already a joke anyway, you will get way more gold in openworld so your argument is already felling.
> >
> > If people love raids, it's because it's engaging, you can't be brainless except if you really know the fight by hearth and have a perfect team, which is rarely the case, even in roster or raid guild.
> >
> > Raider don't play the raid in group because it's forced, it's because it's in group and is not braindead that they play the thing.
> > And why a gamemode can't have something to him like lore or story to it just because you don't like it, it's pure entitilement, i don't play wvw or spvp, but i will not care if they get exclusive rewards, it's not like i can't go play them to get them, i could get to it and get it. Plus side note, most of lore behind raids are not even related to the main plot but more gw1 or backstory.
> >
> > Openworld players have like +30 legendary gear they can get, but god, when they can't get one armor and one ring it's heresy. Even if it's usless for casual player to switch stats opposed to wvw/HL content where it's usful to switch stats often.
> >
> > Sure a story mode will be nice, but like everyone said it here, there should be no raid reward in it, maybe some skins unique to it. But it's a story mode anyway, it's should only be here for the story or to train.
>
> Yea, except if most raiders would admit what they actually do, and some of them actually have but that thread got deleted, we all find out how they do everything in their power, and use every exploit to skip as much of the "difficulty" as possible. There is nothing more brainded than doing the same exact thing over and over and over, which is the only thing raids have in them. Know the dance? THEN DANCE! But even that is too much time "wasted", so just skip everything you possibly can to get to the precious rewards, the only thing people covet over everything else. Even fun is less important than stuff.
>
> Also, if they make a solo version of raids, why would that mean it requires less effort to complete it? Sure they would have to actually put some effort and imagination into it, which is more than can be said of the same old recycled raids anet simply copied from other games.
Let's make something clear,
their are two mayor differences in how people who enjoy difficult content enjoy difficult content.
1) The puzzle/progression aspect. Figuring out how things work and solving the puzzle piece by piece.
2) The perfection of strategies/ mastery. Because their is quite a big amount of difficulty in improving yourself. to give the dance example, ever watched a proffesional dance competition? Do you think its not difficult to dance at that level even if its just doing the same dance over and over.
-
> @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:
> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:
> > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".
> > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.
> > >
> > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.
> > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.
>
> That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".
>
> While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.
We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.
If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)
-
On a more serious note,
A few of the remarks in this tread get countered with the fact that the info they ask is on sc's website.
Is their a way to more easily get all the info out their so less people miss the extra info that is available?
-
> @"Fangoth.4503" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > > @"Aceofsppades.6873" said:
> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:
> > > > > > @"lare.5129" said:
> > > > > > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > > > > You should talk abit to ladykitty if you think raids are not ready for none sc builds.
> > > > > > not always. I take real example from my build on thief. I don't say that thins is not impossible at all
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One day nomad bearbow will be accepted and show its best :)
> > > >
> > > > As a hand kiter at deimos? You could do it now and it would probably work perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > Too much toughness, not even a minstrel tank could take aggro from that.
> >
> > Maybe take a nomads gear tank with thougness infusions. :p
>
> no, infusion + food doesn't compensate the pet + stone signet he is also running. just let him tank and lfg a hk that know how to dodge every 7sec
fair, one day we'll make a nomads bearbow ranger good. :p
-
> @"Aceofsppades.6873" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:
> > > > @"lare.5129" said:
> > > > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > > You should talk abit to ladykitty if you think raids are not ready for none sc builds.
> > > > not always. I take real example from my build on thief. I don't say that thins is not impossible at all
> > > >
> > >
> > > One day nomad bearbow will be accepted and show its best :)
> >
> > As a hand kiter at deimos? You could do it now and it would probably work perfectly fine.
>
> Too much toughness, not even a minstrel tank could take aggro from that.
Maybe take a nomads gear tank with thougness infusions. :p
-
> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > There’s a difference between players offering to teach you and expecting all of them to teach you.
> > > >
> > > > Board games are also very different as players are not driven for rewards compared to those doing raids/fractals. Progress for board/card games is nonexistent in the sense that you’re simply playing the game whereas progress in fractals/raids can be slowed or even halted with having new players.
> > >
> > > I don't expect all of them to teach me. The teaching doesn't happen enough. If I'm wrong the raiding community would grow. And I'm completely fine with being wrong.
> > The raid community doesn't grow not because there's not enough players wanting to teach, or not enough opportunities to learn. It's because learning process itself is too tedious/painful for a majority of players, which results in not enough players being willing to stick with it to the end. Which is a byproduct of both content difficulty and the skill discrepancies within community. And those are a byproduct of the combat/skill/traits/gear system design Anet decided on.
> >
> > With whole game as it is, and the content being as it is, Raids being sustainable would require GW2 having way, way bigger playerbase than it has. Possibly even bigger than it ever had (, well, apart from maybe first months of the game, but _without_ content locust padding a large part of that number).
>
> Just want to chime in here because this is a good example of what I've been saying.
>
> Yes, you're right in your comments here. But ask yourself: "Why is the learning process so tedious/painful that players wouldn't want to stick around?"
>
> In the beginning of HoT when raids were first released, a progression began to happen which has led to what we have now:
>
> * Raids are first released and there are no expectations being placed on players. Everyone begins participating in raids because it is easy to get into a group.
> * During first few days/first week, people begin figuring out comp methods to deal with certain bosses. Every guild is experimenting with different types of things that work for them. Expectations rise a little bit here for players now. Groups want players to run certain things for a functional comp, but they are still in a phase where everyone is being really lenient with allowing players time to learn.
> * First month/months go by and certain guilds begin mastering the raids while recording speed run times. They begin sharing their methods on stream/video/website. A solid meta begins to form with solid techniques to be used with those meta comps. Now this is where an important change occurs, where players lose all patience for new players/groups who are organically learning the raids. They watch the streams/videos/websites and want to use the exact same method that the fast guilds are using, which is great honestly, and it does give the player base a reference point for organizational purposes to go off of. However, this is a double bladed sword. The strongest veterans within the community begin to isolate themselves into groups of other identified veterans. Now when new players show up to the scene, they are not allowed in groups unless they are running a very specific build and if a group even wants that build in the comp. Organization time begins to go up with raids. People who are new during this phase are not taken in so generously as they would have been during first week release. These new players in this phase are finding it more difficult to even get a chance to join a group and train at all.
> * 6 months to first year goes by. KP checks turn from a reasonable method to gauge general experience & ability to complete content, into a way to make sure squad joins are doing everything perfectly. DPS meters come heavy into the scene and exasperate the problem. Now it isn't enough to form a group with players running the right builds who are capable of completing the content. Now squads are looking for players who can do it nearly perfectly. During this phase, this is where pandora's box is opened. All of the veterans and even new players, are being told by commercial streams/channels/websites that "This is how you run the raids" and they begin to believe that in full. No one tolerates anyone or anything in their group that isn't ridiculously exactly copy/pasted from a meta site. Guys that would have been the pioneers during week one and first month of raid release, who were the ones carrying the strategy & methods of their groups, are now being booted out of squads very seriously because some commander notices he has a difference in his utility skills. And now in this phase when new players show up, even if they are wise enough to watch videos first and show up with proper builds, no one wants to touch them with a 10ft pole because they are inexperienced, and people are tunnel visioning dps meters and KP checks. It begins to become excruciatingly frustrating and an enormous waste of time for new players showing up on the scene to attempt to participate. They often get stuck in these phases of join guild who says they train new players - guild schedules training raid nights - nothing ever gets done because some of the people in the training group are extremely subpar players in general - and the guild won't let the new join who is actually GOOD join the normal team in normal raids even though he is ready - he is permanently caught in the noob fiesta zone because he began play a year late and doesn't have a stock of KPs to ping, even though he is ready to participate with those kinds of players. During this phase many players just leave the scene and don't come back, even though they really really wanted to get involved and possessed all of the skill necessary to do so. They deem that "it isn't worth the time & hassle" if the real boss fight is the community and not the creatures in the raids.
> * Years and years go on, and it brings us to where we are now. In our a current phase, there isn't just a separation of "Experienced Veterans vs. Casuals & New Players" oooooh no, now we have a system of hierarchy going on, where there are like: Super Elites - Elites - Veterans - Guys Who At Least Know Mechanics - New Players. And everyone of these hierarchal categories are working with different expectations and KP checks. The problem with that, is that every hierarchal category refuses to play with a category lower than them. So Super Elites don't want to play with anyone. Elites aren't allowed in with Super Elites and they don't want to play with general Veterans. The Veterans think both the Elites and Super Elites are ridiculous but they act the very same way when they refuse to play with lesser experienced players. Guys who at least know the mechanics are very frustrated because Veterans and Elites and Super Elites won't let them stay in squads even though they know they are capable of completing content. And New Players show up on the scene and very seriously cannot find a group that will play with them at all. Eventually people just get tired and exhausted of the social stigma and segregation and eventually walk away, which usually happens really fast nowadays. This phase is nothing like the first week or month or even first year phase. The expectation and segregation is unbelievably strong in year 9, which certainly doesn't help the speed of squad formation & general participation levels, or the ease of entry for new players to have an incentive to stay and play whatsoever. It's a miracle that anyone would stick around this seen at all to be honest.
>
> **The very important thing to note** is that KPs in this game mode have been like a tsunami tidal wave. The players who were lucky enough to have been present during the first couple of era phases were able to benefit the community leniency to allow everyone time to learn. Organization and acceptance was easy back then. The players who played avidly began building KP and it rose up and up and up and those old veterans who had been playing from way back when rose up with it, riding the top of the tsunami tidal wave. It kept growing higher and taller and taller, and everyone underneath it got sucked up in it, losing all their footing & ground & basis for being able to participate. Now that we're in year 9, we can see the damage that the tsunami tidal wave has done. There are entire lobbies of players standing around in LFG or in guilds, trying to form squads, who refuse to play together, because of the walls & gates of hierarchal social stigma.
>
> This hierarchal social stigma is caused primarily by 3x things: 1) KPs - 2) DPS Meters - 3) Meta Sites & Sources of reference that make everyone even new players believe that it must be done correctly & perfectly or it isn't worth doing at all or that it can't be done.
>
> What makes the raid game mode difficult, isn't the boss fight content, it's battling the social stigma which makes participation unbelievably impractical in 2020. And before any old veterans disagree with me who have been riding the top of the tidal wave for so long, ask yourselves this: "If you were a new player now in 2020 who had no KPs who knew no one, would you even stick around to participate when joining a decent squad was always met with being kicked, guilds with any real training were so so hard to find and infrequent to be able to participate with, and all the vets tell you to go join your own squad and learn on your own, which ends up being impossible to do because no one will join your new player squad and there are no new player squads to join?"
>
> ~ Think it over a bit.
We'll their the infrequent raid releases become a problem because a new release generates more new statics etc.
Tbh I wouldn't ever have started raiding in this game if I didn't know people. But tbh that's also sort off the point. It requires social interaction.
-
> @"Carcharoth Lucian.1378" said:
> > @"yann.1946"
> > @"Fueki.4753"
>
> With this ultra wide definition, basicly all the builds (even the most inefficient ones) are meta... cause they are not provided by the game, right?
>
>
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > That's pretty much what i wanted to say (although worded far better than i could do it).
> > Notice, by the way, that the build/group setup "being meta" is primarily a function of _popularity_. Sure, build effectiveness does impact its popularity, but it's not the only factor. There are other considerations, with some being completely trivial ones - for example, a build that was promoted by a popular streamer can suddenly catapult itself into meta, even though that build was already known earlier, and nothing about the build itself has changed. In this case, the build changes its meta status purely through a change in community acceptance.
> >
> > So, the tl/dr version is that certain things are meta because (and only because) enough players _think_ they are meta. That's all there is to it - the Meta is just a pool of more widely accepted builds/team setups/strategies. If it's not widely accepted, it's not meta. _Even if it would be better than anything meta can offer._
>
> That's the first time i heard that meta means "_popularity_". Honestly, it just feel that you have your _own_ def of the word (which is not aven the same as @"yann.1946" and @"Fueki.4753" ).
>
> For Discretize and Snowcrows meta mean Most Effective Tactic Available, by their own words (wherter you like it or not, that's a fact) :
> "What does meta mean?
> There are many different interpretations for meta, but we consider urbandictionary's definition to be the most accurate one: meta is "a term used in MMO meaning the Most Effective Tactic Available. It's basically what works in a game regardless of what you wish would work."
> Many players are using certain compositions - non meta ones - on a daily basis, which does not elevate them to meta. It might work adequately for their goal - a wipe-less and safe clear - however, it is not the fastest or the most efficient way to play.
>
> The meta for fractals therefore not only encompasses what classes and builds are most effective but also how to play - in other words - what rotation should be used. Example skill rotations for every meta build can be found in their respective build pages."
> Source : https://discretize.eu/guides/meta-explained
No not everything would be meta under that definition.
If you are interested in what where meta gaming comes from look up Matt coville meta gaming. Their it is in context of dnd.
-
> @"Westenev.5289" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > > @"paulelle.6813" said:
> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > @"Carcharoth Lucian.1378" said:
> > > > > When we talk about M.E.T.A., it is always related to some precise situation/content, like Raid META (and each boss have its own META), Fract META (same, there is different META for each fract), OW META, WvW META, etc...
> > > > The main point is that when we talk about Meta, we don't really talk about M.E.T.A. That acronym may sound nice, but that's not what Meta is. Sure, the as-high-as-possible effectiveness is one of the primary goals of builds that are made for high-end content, but:
> > > > - it's not the only consideration. Often, efficiency _can_ be sacrificed for ease of use, for example. And there's a matter of popularity. there have been cases when some more effective builds were not in meta, because they were for some reason not popular. There were also cases when much less effective builds (or even ones that were created as meme builds) ended up in meta because they happened to gain some popularity for other reasons than just efficiency.
> > > > - second, meta is not something that is limited to high-end content. And in open world, for example, being "most effective" is of far less importance.
> > > >
> > > > In short, my point is that the "most effective tactics available" is something that appeared long after the word "meta" was a thing, and it encompasses only a small fraction of what meta is.
> > > >
> > > > (that's in addition to what i said about Snowcrows site _not_ being about M.E.T.A., which can be seen easily by just looking through that site, and seeing how some of things that they mention are far from being "most effective". In fact, i'd say that the "most efficient" stuff is in minority on that site)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please share with us the "true" definition of "meta", because all you (and some others) are saying is that acronym is not the right definition, but you still don't tell us what "meta" really means for you
> > >
> >
> > Meta comes from meta gaming. Which is basically all gaming which uses the info that it is a game.
> > Min maxing in rpgs is an example because the characters wouldn't necessarily learn these abilities, but the player would
>
> Most Effective Tactic Avalable.
Have you missed the posts mentioning that that is not the original meaning
Impossible for new players! RAIDS!
in Instanced Group Content
Posted
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"yann.1946" said:
> > Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping?
> For some players, maybe. For others "chill" means not having to bother with all the organizational stuff, angry people etc. Someone wanting a chill run does not necessarily want to keep wiping, though. Wipes are usually chill mainly for people that have absolutely no problem with succeeding.
>
Isn't part of not wanting angry people, not getting angry yourself incase things don't go as you want.
Otherwise this feels very hypocritical to me.
But i have to agree, not minding wiping is probably the biggest help incase you want to raid.