sigur.9453
-
Posts
639 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by sigur.9453
-
-
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > So you mean easy mode would be better for the experienced players?
>
> In a sense, it could be. If they were forming a random pug, the pug would be less likely to fail due to too many "duds" in the group. On the flipside, you would expect less loot per win, so if you *could* join a group likely to succeed at hard mode, you'd probably be better off doing so. It depends on whether you prefer something casual and relatively likely to succeed, or something a bit higher stakes.
>
Why would the expierenced player do so though? Since,well he IS expierenced enough to join expierienced groups, which most likely beat the NORMAL mode anyway.
You wouldn´t lose much time on a failed attempt either.
> >It also happens a lot that you take "whatever comes" in your grp when the group isn´t filling fast, or "lowman" it even without a problem (and im speaking of your average raid group full of 5-7´s, not those godlike dps monster groups)
>
> Perhaps, but if you are one of those weaker players it can be harder to stumble onto a group that's already at that point. Better to join a group where you would be in the middle of the pack than hope for one where you're a charity case.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not?
Or join a group where you are "in the middle of the pack". But yeah, there would n´t be your 100% success quaranty in it. Which again is different for each induvidial.
I remember when bringing VG to his next phase was a HUGE success. But i get it, only (virtual) vallue counts today.
>
-
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> >The Content IS already forgiving enough that "7´s" can carry 2-3 "<5´s".
>
> I either don't believe that is true, OR we aren't using the same scale, OR that group with 7s in it would not allow any <5's into it (unless they paid first).
>
Since its a made up scale, who knows. But i have been in grp´s with huge "skill gaps" between each individual player where nobody was payed (to my knowledge) or cared about the dps.
> If nothing else, easy mode would be balanced with the *expectation* of a high number of <5's, and therefore any 7s that showed up would know what to expect. By my scale, a group of entirely 7s would have a hard time soloing the harder encounters, particularly on their first tries. By the scale I'm using here, a "balanced raid group" would be mostly 8s, with maybe a 9 or two, and maybe a few 6s and 7s. A "raid seller" group that intends to full-on carry 1-2 players (again, for the harder encounters) would be more in the all 8's with maybe a solid number of 9s or 10s.
>
Every "7" already knows what to expect when joining a grp, if she/he is able to read the lfg correctly or the commander is able to state the lfg correctly.
And while i am not in a raid seller guild, and we are a mixed bunch of 5-9s we are still able to carry 1 or 2 people who havent raided before trough most of the encounters, so i have to say your assumtions on this matter are incorrect.
> >For most bosses you need 3-4 people to know whats going on, and the rest "paticipates" and tries not to die. The question is IF those players are WILLING to carry those others.
>
> And in easy mode, a few of those players could drop the ball more often, so the "carried" players would be much less of a burden on the rest of the team. They;'d be easier to keep alive, and contribute a higher percentage of the damage than in a regular raid.
>
So you mean easy mode would be better for the experienced players?
> Now would you have "elitist" groups in easy mode? Groups that insist on higher than necessary levels of skill and experience? Sure, that happens, human nature, just as during the heights of dungeons you'd have those "Zerk Warriors only" teams on LFG, but those wouldn't be the *only* teams available, nor the *only* teams to succeed. It would be faster to just take on a few "2-4" players and beat the encounter anyway than it would be to sit around waiting for more 7s to show up.
>
Probaply, but then again, those groups already exist.
Will it be a 100% kill on the first try? Maybe not.
It also happens a lot that you take "whatever comes" in your grp when the group isn´t filling fast, or "lowman" it even without a problem (and im speaking of your average raid group full of 5-7´s, not those godlike dps monster groups)
> >There are so many grps in lfg with no requirements, with terrible terrible dps and mechanic execution, but they still get the job done. Im sorry to say, but he next lower step would be an interactive cutscene.
>
> Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.
While i will consider your adivse, it also adds nothing.
Especially when you ignore the other part of my writing.
-
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:
> On a difficulty scale of 1-10 (within the range of GW2, so forget outside games), if 1 is "gerbil on a keyboard," and 10 is "one of those guys who can complete raids with the smallest, weakest possible teams in minimal time," if a 2 is "can't complete LW chapters solo," and an 8 is "can clear raids currently without being carried or taking the "easy" roles," if a 4 is "can't carry his own weight through CoF" and 6 is "can handle mid to high tier Fractals, but maybe not the topmost ones," I'm aiming around an average of 5s. I expect some players to be 6 and 7s, some to be lower and need to be carried a bit, but for the content to be forgiving enough to allow for that. I believe that this is a reasonable expectation for GW2 open LFGs.
The Content IS already forgiving enough that "7´s" can carry 2-3 "<5´s".
For most bosses you need 3-4 people to know whats going on, and the rest "paticipates" and tries not to die. The question is IF those players are WILLING to carry those others.
Which can be communicated. But there is the MAIN "problem" raids have. People want to hop in, and get the loot, since the whole other pve content works like that.
But since its group content (oh my god 9 other individuals with different expectations and needs) you actually have to communicate with each other, or at least read the lfg.
There are so many grps in lfg with no requirements, with terrible terrible dps and mechanic execution, but they still get the job done. Im sorry to say, but he next lower step would be an interactive cutscene.
-
and we are back to the state where the other "disscusion" was.
/close
-
Would be suicide for the balance team
-
> @"Sephylon.4938" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > > > If we assume that al participants are on a same-ish skill level, Its quite a difference what the use of one single skill makes (i guess the lowest dps necro was epi-ing the boss here)
> > > 99th necro percentile on that boss is 36k (boss damage, not all damage). 3 of those people are 5k above it. You can bet they aren't your average players.
> > > Additionally, if you check the 90% percentile, you will see that necro is much lower than that (26k boss damage), which is equal to 2 other dps options and within 2k of another 5 (counting builds, not classes here). On 50th percentile Necro is actually at the bottom of the pack.
> > > Notice also that this encounter seems to favour condi builds, which also impacts the results.
> > >
> > > All that shows the "op" damage is a result of way more than "one single skill use".
> > >
> >
> > You missed my point.
> > Assuming that all the necros in this grp are on a same skill level, the only difference is actually "pressing one button". (or in this case bouncing)
> > Even if you look at SC´s "numbers to aim for.
> > Scourge : 22k
> > Scourge with Bouncing : 35k
> > **Same build, same rota. So how is this skill not broken?** (i don´t mind actually)
> >
> > And since we are talking balance here, the only data that matters is the 100 percentile.
> > Also, you cant really translate the 50/90th data correctly, since the most grps only run 1 scourge and decreases the average dps. (by a lot)
>
> So they didn't have to press heal>f1>trail>f1>f5>3>2>5>4, or weapon swap off cd, or do an auto chain, they just presses epi. Wow I've been doing necro wrong.
read again please.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > If we assume that al participants are on a same-ish skill level, Its quite a difference what the use of one single skill makes (i guess the lowest dps necro was epi-ing the boss here)
> 99th necro percentile on that boss is 36k (boss damage, not all damage). 3 of those people are 5k above it. You can bet they aren't your average players.
> Additionally, if you check the 90% percentile, you will see that necro is much lower than that (26k boss damage), which is equal to 2 other dps options and within 2k of another 5 (counting builds, not classes here). On 50th percentile Necro is actually at the bottom of the pack.
> Notice also that this encounter seems to favour condi builds, which also impacts the results.
>
> All that shows the "op" damage is a result of way more than "one single skill use".
>
You missed my point.
Assuming that all the necros in this grp are on a same skill level, the only difference is actually "pressing one button". (or in this case bouncing)
Even if you look at SC´s "numbers to aim for.
Scourge : 22k
Scourge with Bouncing : 35k
Same build, same rota. So how is this skill not broken? (i don´t mind actually)
And since we are talking balance here, the only data that matters is the 100 percentile.
Also, you cant really translate the 50/90th data correctly, since the most grps only run 1 scourge and decreases the average dps. (by a lot)
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Talindra.4958" said:
> > It doesn't affect me. It's the game ppl fight for class balance. A group full of necro rely on only one skill
> If they rely on only that skill, they do next to no damage, because epidemic itself requires conditions from other sources to work properly, and it's effectiveness is directly related to amount of those conditions. A bunch of necros just spamming epi (but being terrible at everything else) will not have even close to the damage you speak of and might in fact get outdps-ed by a single good weaver.
>
>
Fair enough, but if you look on this numbers:
https://www.gw2raidar.com/encounter/AccessedAbortionsConsentColourSustains
If we assume that al participants are on a same-ish skill level, Its quite a difference what the use of one single skill makes (i guess the lowest dps necro was epi-ing the boss here)
PS:
Im not sure if the Link with Names is allowed, feel free to inform me, that i can delete it. (if it even works)
-
> @"Colly.4073" said:
> WoW raiders came here in droves and brought with them Elitism, toxicity and DPS meters. We don’t want that crap here.
absolute nonsense
im a toxic elitist and i didn´t play wow in 10 years.
-
> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:
> Is this complaining going on because people are being out-dps'd by 1 niche skill? I thought it'd be welcome in raids to beat the content as quick as possible. I'm really scratching my head over this one so it must be people are salty by being out-dps'd.
I dont think its about getting out dps´d, since op stated he doesn´t play dps classes.
it´s more a valid concern that a class is balanced around one single skill, which if you look at it on a bigger scale limits the class itself.
(just look at the amount of "why anet hates necro so much" treaths popping up after every balance patch)
-
> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said:
> As a Necro main, I strangely enough would not care at all to remove Epi completely out of the game! Because I feel this one single skill is _the_ main reason why ANet is holding us back in the PvE endgame for so long now. With that one skill gone, they finally can give the Necro (Reaper and Scourge) the buffs or maybe even overhaul it so severely needs!
Exactly this, epi is the main (only?) reason that necro will always be behind the other classes (solo), which perfectly makes sense balance-wise.
-
Short answer:
DH is pretty fine for factals and raids. (not "topdog" though)
In Fractals Power is better then condi, since all the fight are shorter. In Raids, it depends on the boss, but with DH you are "viable" everywhere.
Warrior is demanded a lot, but there are also a lot of warrior players out there, (warriors are mostly used for a support-ish role, and the groups just need one), keep that in mind.
My advise: "rank up"with one class in fractals, try some of the easier raid bosses, and over the time you will more or less drown in asc. gear. (which you can statswap btw.)
-
-
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:
> > Development ressources don't grow on trees. Of course they will get delayed.
>
> Again, no reason to assume that. There is no reason to assume that the resources needed would be significant enough to cause a delay in the first place, nor that even if they *were,* that these resources would have to come from an existing raid or LS team.
>
> >Slightly longer? Raids are the least updated PvE content. YOU are selfish for wanting everything.
>
> SAB wants to share whatever it is you're on.
>
> >In GW2 ALL content patches include LS so casuals get something every time while between Wing 4 and 5 where 10 months. We are already 5 months into WIng 5 and there won't be another raid before the next LS episode so atleast 7 months between the raids.
>
> It's not a staggered cadence, there are different people working on each. Raids release when raids are finished. Easy mode raids would release a few months after that when they get around to it. Again, there's no reason to assume the cadence would be slowed significantly.
Common Sense? Of course new wing would be delayed. Think!
Really? You are comparing a once a year event with raids?
-
Even if i try to read of your wall of texts, i stop reading when you call it "hard mode". it´s NORMAL, the BASE difficulty.
-
> @"Abisha.9028" said:
> > @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > I've soloed most of HOT on every single profession. There is indeed a step up in difficulty in HOT. But with the exception of a handful of hero points, and the metas, everything in HoT can be soloed on any profession.
> >
> > This is a matter of learning the game, nothing more.
>
> I not like play GW2 for months only a few weeks but encountered mods that fade out of thin air which also evade 90% of my attacks not sure what i can do to be better then.
> or Mobs that constant keep rolling which is like freaking hard to attack, veterans that almost 1 hit kill players etc.
IF i am correct you mean the smokescale. If you stand in his red circle aoe field (smokefield) you won´t be able to hit him. just step outside of it, then you can kill it pretty fast.
Unlike vanilla each mob actually has mechanics, which once learnd aren´t a problem any more.
more difficult? yes
hard? no
-
"you don´t need to wait to have fun" anet 2013
sad thing, there are already people out there trolling "not bugged" zephyrit maps. guess the 17 other items are blocking my inventory for a while.
Edit: apperently they fixed that event, good job!
-
> @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:
> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > > However, if the raid team were doing dungeons, instead of raids that shouldn't impact time as much. That I'd be okay with.
> >
> > If they should do this they'll lose a lot of players again due to boredom very fast like they did during the content drought between LS2 and HoT. The raiding crowd is a significant amount of players Anet made content for - it's not only the speed guild fraction. If at all those are probably around 100 players, raiders are a lot more, for example like me. People are underestimating that completely. There is a need for difficult content in this game. As much as I loved dungeon running in the past it's not the content raids can be replaced for. I would rather suggest to hand out LS story on a 6 months cycle and move LS devs from it.
>
> Do you have any evidence for your assertions. Because we know from long long history that the average MMO player is casual. And casual content attracts more players that hard core content. This is true for every MMO ever made and I'm pretty sure that includes Guild Wars 2.
>
> I'm 100% sure the amount of people in this game is less than you think it is, and I'm almost that sure that the amount of people who do Living Story and open world content is far far greater than the number of raiders.
thats why they get the most content.
i mean come on...2 wings in 12 month? and you don´t even grant "us" that?
i don´t like your attitute dear madam/sir
-
it´s all a dream, we are still in mordremoths realm
-
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"thrag.9740" said:
> > 1.) Splitting populations. This video was entirely based on single player games. There is no que time involved there, but in an mmo you need teammates to play with.
>
> True, but better to split a population in a way that allow both to have fun, than to just not allow one group to have fun. If there's only one mode, then you have three groups of people, a) those who enjoy the existing raids and would be doing the harder version regardless, b) those who don't enjoy the existing raids, and bow out of the process entirely (and therefore aren't part of the population pool in the first place), and c) those who don't enjoy the cuyrrent version, but do it anyway because it's the only game in town. You are arguing that without group c being made available for your benefit, you might have a harder time finding a full party.
>
> This is true.
>
> But those players do not owe you anything.
>
> Other MMOs offer split difficulty raids, and seem to do just fine. Even an indy game called "Guild Wars 2" offers _100_ different levels of Fractal.
>
> >2.) Man hour priorities. The question is not as simple as, 'would difficulty tiers be nice?'. The question is, 'Are difficulty tiers more important that releasing more content?'.
>
> And the answer is "yes, obviously."
>
> But it's not so black and white, since offering easier modes should not radically increase development times. All they have to do is make the same higher difficulty versions they do now, and then copy/paste a new version and start knocking a few holes in the walls, reducing the negative impacts of failing various mechanics so that they don't end the fight entirely. If they'd like to spend a little more time sprucing the systems up, that's great, but it really shouldn't reduce their release schedule by a huge amount, and in return they can engage a much larger portion of the players.
>
> >3.) Rewards. Any online game has an aspect of competitiveness to it, and so rewards need to be balanced properly across difficulty modes, or players will feel unrewarded.
>
> Nah. There's no reason why players who enjoy higher difficulty content should receive significantly higher rewards than those who enjoy lower difficulty content. Play how you want to play. When the higher difficulty versions take more time to complete, they can receive slightly more rewards, comparable to the time they take, but there's no reason why they should have rewards unique to those modes, or have massively higher quantities of rewards. Players who enjoy higher difficulty content should be playing those modes because they enjoy it. We've already seen this effect in the game, where teams have cleared various raid content under numerous self-imposed handicaps, such as minimal armor, deliberately bad team comps, few members, etc. They were not rewarded bonus for this, they did it anyway because they enjoyed the challenge. That is, and should be the reward for playing more difficult versions of an encounter, so long as reward/time balance has been accounted for.
>
> >This then leads to uneven population splits among the tiers and even longer que times, making point 1 even more of a problem.
>
> I think two tiers should be plenty. Three or more would be unnecessary hair splitting.
No thank you.
-
> @"Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497" said:
> > @"RSLongK.8961" said:
> > Create your own group. manege 9 other people you dont know what skil level they are, what they are bringing to the group and let us know how it went. how long it took for the first vale guardian kill.
> > Meta is not a imposition, its a conclusion after many trials and errors and people not wating to spend more time for thing they already did many times over. /hugs
>
> Did this vale guardian went down in second try. The failure was due to no one having boon strip.
>
> Really, I am sick of being shoe horned into the meta myself. We know the DPS requirements are low. But everyone in pugs insist that anything out of meta is doomed for failure.
To be fair, not having boonstrip is not happening in Meta Squads.
People forget that Meta isn´t JUST about dps and dps classes.
-
> @"Gunga.9210" said:
> Had my account for 3 years have been not able to buy gems since Sunday. I have submitted a support ticket, but I'm pretty sure when clicking the blue "Buy Gems" button producing the error "Unfortunately an error has occurred. Please try again later!" is not going be much help to support. My ping is fine(40-60) and repair did nothing. They asked for a screen shot though so I sent one in with an update.
im also stuck there since one week.
im already in "round 5" with the support. meaning i have to download gameadvisor and send them a log from it.
i think it will take some time till this get fixed since they obviously have no idea what causes the error.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > > > Todays raiders managed to learn the fights this way, so should the others, sry.
> > > You do realize it sounds very much like "we had it bad, so others should have it bad as well". If we kept to this way of thinking, we'd still be living in caves.
> > >
> >
> > No what i mean is, that "we" also managed. so it shoudn´t be a problem with anyone else.
> People in caves also "managed". Just saying.
>
> "But we've managed" is not an argument against improvement.
>
>
Then please add good ideas for improvments. And why and how easy mode could contribute to the game. (in my opinion it simply wont)
Then we could argue about that instead of people in caves and their life coices.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > Todays raiders managed to learn the fights this way, so should the others, sry.
> You do realize it sounds very much like "we had it bad, so others should have it bad as well". If we kept to this way of thinking, we'd still be living in caves.
>
No what i mean is, that "we" also managed. so it shoudn´t be a problem with anyone else.
Nore did i find it bad in any case. It was "the ultimate challenge" so it shouldn´t be easy,.(maybe its a mindset thing)
I also startet "late" (speaking ppl aready had like 50 LI, and that sounded like 1 million for me that time), but guess what. we formed a static grp with another guild, and SLOWLY start to progress. and frankly speaking, it was a blast. Best moments i had in this game (despite some drama of course)
if people don´t take their faith in their own hand, we´d still be living in caves
Do raids need easy/normal/hard difficulty mode? [merged]
in Instanced Group Content
Posted
> @"Ohoni.6057" said:
> > @"sigur.9453" said:
> > Why would the expierenced player do so though? Since,well he IS expierenced enough to join expierienced groups, which most likely beat the NORMAL mode anyway.
> You wouldn´t lose much time on a failed attempt either.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
What now?
Edit: i think something was lost in translation. i meant, if said exp player would have a failed attemt in normal mode, he would lose so much time anyway (im not a nativ english speaker, pardon me that)