Astralporing.1957

> @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > You know, i was in the middle of writing a long response to you, but wanted to check something first and did a little search, which accidentally reminded me that we've been doing the very exact same discussion several times already in many different threads in the past. > > I suddenly lost any desire to rehash all the same arguments all over again. Let's just agree that we interpter what was happening and what devs were saying in different ways, and that both of our approaches are equally subjective. > > > > Of course, i will still keep thinking that _my_ view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you. > > So tldr I cant find any proof for my points but still think Im right. > Do that about sum it up? No. I just can't be bothered to give the same responses to the same arguments of the same person for the _fifth_ time (or more, i wasn't looking all that deeply, and i wasn't checking the archived old forum either) But to sum it up again, in a very short version: the dev statements and actions both me and maddoctor are looking at are very much a subject to interpretation. I have learned already that maddoctor's interpretation of those things is wildly different than mine. Short of getting some inside news it's next to impossible to know which of our interpretations is closer to the truth. I think it's mine, obviously. Equally obviously maddoctor keeps to his own. We've been doing that back and forth for a while already, so i don't think i will see an argument i haven't seen yet (nor do i have any i haven;t already used before). As such, i don;t think repeating it again is worth anything. Especially since raids are already abandoned, and that is extremely unlikely to change, so talking about those things accomplishes nothing - it's just a game of imagining what could have been done (but wasn't). It has no bearing whatsoever on the future anyway. TL/DR; Believe what you want. Raids are still abandoned, and that is not likely to change.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: You know, i was in the middle of writing a long response to you, but wanted to check something first and did a little search, which accidentally reminded me that we've been doing the very exact same discussion several times already in many different threads in the past. I suddenly lost any desire to rehash all the same arguments all over again. Let's just agree that we interpter what was happening and what devs were saying in different ways, and that both of our approaches are equally subjective. Of course, i will still keep thinking that _my_ view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > Which has nothing to do with raids themselves. > > That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design _did_ fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true. > > Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids. I don't follow. Whether those design decisions have impact on each other doesn't matter. What matters is if Anet is always making correct decisions, or not. If they always make correct decisions, which never need to be changed, then nothing in the game can go wrong. But if they do happen to make wrong decisions, and their design goals _are_ subject to change, then them once saying they inteded something is not a hard argument against change. And we do know that both bad decisions and design goal changes are things that do happen to them. > > Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the _fact_ that they did happen is _not_ an opinion. > > I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant. > > Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content. It does not. But it does mean that Anet _is_ making bad decisions, and that sometimes design decision changes _should_ happen. And you can't just assume that some parts you like are extempt from that. Or rather, you can, but that is also nothing more than just a subjective opinion. > I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the **WHY**. Please don't shift the goal post on this. I'm not. _You_ are. I was merely responding to your claim that something is not possible because it would go against their initial stated design goals. My whole point was that it is a very weak argument, because original design goals by itself do not matter. What matters is how they are relevant to the new situation, and _this_ you never actually refered to. You just were bringing up their original statement as if it was something sacred, not to be questioned and never to be changed, just because. You never bothered to try to justify _why_ this design decision > > No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine. > > You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about **DESIGN DECISIONS** (the **WHY**) and not about them being abandoned. Again, the one trying to change goalposts here is you. My whole point when arguing with you was contesting your appeal to authority argument. Nothing more.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > First, they told us that matters were going in a good direction. Yes. Or, to be more precise, they said about raids doing better than expected, which is not the same (although might be interpreted that way). Personally, i never took those words as anything more than a PR promotion of new content. If i remember well, they were satisfied with how build templates turned out too, you know. > There is no indication about Raids being a failure in any developer comment from the first three releases, they were both surprised at the playerbase the Raids attracted and at the same time promised faster and more regular releases. I can dig up the exact comments but I'm sure you know them so it will be pointless. So I don't think there was anything "obviously wrong" with Raids, nor that the original approach they used in them "wasn't working". No, we only know that it was okay while raids were still relatively fresh. We don't really know if that stilll held true once the initial wave of players willing to look and see the new content (and get the legendary armor) crested over and receded, and raids became more like everyday's farm. They never told us anything about _that_. > Second, you say they didn't do anything and they stuck to an arbitrary decision, yet they didn't do that, and that was the problem with Raids. Everything I mentioned in my post you quoted (except the balance) is about them NOT following their initial decision, direction and approach. You don't _know_ their initial direction and approach. For all you know, what they were doing was what they were intending to do from the beginning, and the promises you heard were them hoping for more than intended (which didn't pan out). Remember also, that by the time they were making those promises (which was after first 3 wings got released), the original full raid team was already mostly dismantled and the remains joined with fractal team, so obviously they were promising something they simply could not deliver. Which, again, suggests that it was the reduced schedule (due to already reduced resources) from wing 4 on that was the initial plan, not those promises. > And not following that original approach, not following the initial arbitrary decisions they set, wasn't the wisest choice. It might not have been a choice at all. For example, even with full raid team they never had the ability to make good on that 6 wings a year promise. The best they could hope for would be 2. Maybe 3, if they had access to the initial resources (which they _didn't_ have anymore). Yes. I am sure allocating more resources would have helped. A lot of problems can be fixed if you have access to infinite resources. Unfortunately, infinite resources is something they _didn't_ have access to, so that's one "fix" that was forever to remain as pure theory, with no chance whatsoever to turn into practice.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > 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. > > > > > > That's part of it. They also released the hardest Raid first during Path of Fire development, added no good/worthwhile reward in Path of Fire Raids, their first Path of Fire Raid was in the Underworld, but the place in no way felt like doing justice to the Underworld. Then let's not forget Raid releases being tied to the Living World release schedule meant EXTRA delays that had little to do with content development, lack of balance and proper "roles" (the dreaded Chrono+Druid+BS x2 meta lasted longer than it should) and many others. Aside from reduced development resources, Raids faced a lot of other problems as well All those things are also part of raid implementation, are they not? As i said to @"Ayrilana.1396", we may argue about which specific decisions were right and were wrong, but we can hardly argue that there were _no_ mistakes at all. If that were true, Raids would still be doing fine.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Which has nothing to do with raids themselves. That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design _did_ fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true. > Truth? So your **OPINION** is now truth? If you feel that it's proof then by all means give facts otherwise please don't state your opinion as such. Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the _fact_ that they did happen is _not_ an opinion. > > Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least _some_ of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design". > > That's your opinion. No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > I'm not going to answer your question because of the logical fallacy which you're using. Create an unbiased and fair question. > > EDIT: I'll just fix it for you. > > > So, is their design good and they should stick to it or it isn't? Pick one. > > I find their design to be good. And yet you've just said that: > The issue with raids stems not with raids themselves but with the direction Anet decided to go with GW2 from the beginning. That is also part of the design. If everything was right with the design, Raids would not end up being abandoned. And yet they **did** end up that way. So yeah, in that way my question _was_ a leading one. Or rather a rhetorical one, because the history already answered it. The truth is, that the issue _was_ with the Raids themselves - or, to be more specific, with the fact that as they were implemented, they were not a good match with the rest of the game. So, either the issue was with them being implemented in a way that was wrong _for GW2_, or with the fact that **they were implemented at all**. And you even indirectly acknowledge that in that last quote. Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least _some_ of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design".

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > 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. > > > > Something is _obviously_ wrong? What would that be? The issue with raids stems not with raids themselves but with the direction Anet decided to go with GW2 from the beginning. So, is their design good and they should stick to it (in which case why raids are abandoned), or it isn't (in which case no design decision, including the one you brought up for raids, should be considered inviolable)? Pick one.

> @"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.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said: > 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). Oh, i don't know if it were guaranteed. I know, though, that not doing anything _had_ a guaranteed end. > > Where were the big demands to add more developers to raid content in the past? Nowhere. If Anet were willing to add more developers to raids, they'd have done so when raids were still their favourite. By the way, by asking this you are proving my point. Raiders might have been okay with easy mode if that was coming from some other resources than theirs, but they were not willing to take any risk with _their_ resources. And since they weren't willing to take any risk, they ended up losing all. Because there simply was no way to do anything about raids without taking _some_ risks with those resources. > Why is it that the niche game modes, which already see far less developer attention, are supposed to give? Oh, i don't know, in order to potentially save themselves, maybe? > 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. Yes, it might have. Or it might have helped. Who knows. But not gambling on that (or any other - not there were really any more suggestions, by the way) unknown chance of survival was a _certain_ demise. > 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. This entire notion that doing nothing and letting Anet inevitably abandon Raids was the best choice is just Raiders trying to placate themselves thinking that they _weren't_ the ones responsible and that there was simply nothing to be done. If you want to believe that, please, do so. Raids will not stop being abandoned due to this, though.

> @"Nephalem.8921" said: > I knew molten facility skip was a thing because sometimes it was faster to do 2 fractals again instead of doing the 40m clown car. It was also a giant fiesta if nobody had a thief. Never heard of the swamp skip It was mostly done in the casual groups. Nobody wanted to get stuck for next 30 minutes on wisp running part. It was completely normal for this part alone to take a significant part of the whole run. And no, i'm not even really exagerrating with those 30 minutes. Had this happening to me once. And since all you had to do was quit and restart (since swamp, if it rolled, it always rolled as first in the chain) it was extremely easy to do.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said: > Perfect example of making things easier leading to players never bothering to "learn" or improve at something. Back when the timer was 30s across the board, players were faced with having to "learn" how to do this mechanic. Which, at the time when we still had "chains" of fractals instead of individual ones, led to two groups of players. First knew how to do it, so they rerolled until they got swamp as fist. Second didn't, so they rerolled _if_ they got swamp at first. It's the same problem as, for example, jumping puzzle in shiverpeaks strike.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > Obviously they should have a way to disable this mastery so what few people are still raiding are still raiding & get the full rewards, but honestly the content, especially W1-W4 are so old, they deserve a deprecation path like this if we want GW2 comparable to other MMOs. I also believe the raiding community is getting weaker, not stronger right now, all I've seen is anecdotal but that's my impresson. > > 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? > @"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. 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. > @"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.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > To repeat myself from another thread that was on the same subject (got many of these), these are the gw2efficiency completion rates of some Strike Missions when adjusted with the population that completed the relevant episodes: > Easy Strike: 73% > Medium Strike: 62% > Hard Strike: 55% > > The first thing this new mode of yours is gonna do, is justify its existence. Anet can find the total population interested by looking at the completion rates of the easiest Strike possible, then subtract the number of players that run the harder ones to get the amount of players interested in easier instanced content. Of course they'd need to use regular runner data and not those that finished either only once. We obviously don't have that kind of data, but from what data we do have available it doesn't look this population interested in easier instanced content is any high. And you expect to split that tiny segment into further two groups. You should not be looking at variations within a tier, and trying to extrapolate this into different tiers. Raids already posess similar variation, with significant difference between Cairn at one side, and Dhuum on another. Easy mode, if it were to exist, would likely _not_ be at Cairn level. It would _not_ be at Boneskinner level either. It would be lower. So, you should be rather comparing medium strikes to medium raid tier. Which would make it ~60 % to what? ~10% maybe?

> @"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. > All it does is redistribute rewards to lower tiers and potentially allow reuse of assets. "Redistribution" assumes raiders would lose something - which they wouldn't.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > This whole idea that players should be "respecting" the opposing side to let them get free/easy loot is antithetical to the game mode. > This false idea that we should be "respecting neutral spots" that functionally do not exist to help players get free loot/rewards is part of the imaginary ettiquette that players who do not posses the ability to fight like to spread. I kept hearing this all the time at some point. And then i saw the very same people asking to ban players that interfered in their GvG matches. Because apparently griefing is good only when it doesn't affect you personally. Basically, the ruleset for the gamemode is one thing. Stuff you do (and the reasons behind them) are another. That ruleset in no way prevents you from being civil. Or from intentionally griefing.

> @"dani.5680" said: > > trust me. some of raid groups make you ping all gear and i get insta kicked for not having the 4 armor pieces! That's... rare. Really. Most players never bother getting to that stage unless something really wrong is going on with the fight (and even then it's generally not to check quality of armor, but the stats and runes on it). Pre-PoF, for example, i was doing really fine running a druid healer with ascalonian catacombs exotic armor set. My power banner slave was initially running in full exotics as well. Nobody ever commented on it. If people start asking about your armor on entry, i'd advise you to leave, because it has all the marking of a failsquad in making. People that do stuff like that are unlikely to be experienced themselves.

> @"dani.5680" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Psykewne.3025" said: > > > Yeah I'm not convinced you read my question properly, it was to the OP who claimed he was doing t4 fractals after 3 weeks but also said he had no ascended gear. I'm pretty sure at this point the OP was just a troll. > > Possibly. Or he indeed was running t4's with no ascended. Which would not make the situation any better. > > > > 2 armor 2 weap 6 trinkets ascended, can run t4s! Not all require 150 ar( only LAST fractal) That's not with no ascended. That's already having most of it (10 out of 14-16 pieces, depending on whether you use 1h or 2h weapons). More, in fact, than it would seem from just counting pieces, because it so happens that armor pieces are the _least_ important (having ascended trinkets + weapons covers close to 90% of the impact of the full ascended set)

Generally, as things are, there's no downside to keeping to MCs, unless you need gold really badly. They don't depreciate in value - if anything, their price keeps going up (albeit slowly), so you are not losing out by keeping them.

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > Also, i don't think the poster before was generalizing, to me it looked more like an example. Of course people are more complicated than this. But i think he was referring specifically to people who are then toxic towards the mode and start overexaggerating. That *those* people have their power fantasy shattered. Not all people that are for example anxious even when winning, because at least those people are trying and probably aren't spamming "this mode is spawncamping toxic kitten". Except that this is a generalization as well. People can get uncomfortable and angry for a kittenton of reasons. For example, I have personally seen, in times past, a lot of cases of WvW "duelists" that went totally crazy (including sending flamebombs at everyone around, including those not involved) when their duels were interfered with (usually by accident, by the way). There were also cases when angry WvW players went on forums and reddit in order to protest when someone interfered in their GvG match (this happens less now, with the arena in Obsidian Sanctum, but was a _lot_ more common when those matches were held in the Borderlands). There were also cases of _other_ WvW players getting angry at seeing a number of people occupying a map for a GvG match, ignoring everything else, when their side was losing. Compared to some of those cases, the posts about GoB here are really tame in comparison. And those were all veteran WvW players, completely fine with fighting, losing and not anxious about it at all. But each of them was playing with a specific mindset that wasn't 100% compatible with this gamemode. Generally, the main problem with GoB is that people that get into WvW for it are usually in a mindset of _farming GoB_. Not of playing WvW. Anything else is a distraction at best, an active hindrance (and something they hate to see) at worst. It's a case as if you were asked to make an obstacle course when you went out to your local market. You'd be unlikely to acknowledge the fact that obstacle courses can be fun. And if part of that obstacle course would be _other people actively trying to prevent you from reaching the goal_... well, you get the picture? That person might not even be bad at all this, but that doesn't mean they'd want to see it _on their way to the market_.

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > Just don't announce "i'm just here for GoB and i hate this mode, i'm leaving as soon as i get it". Cause then you're sending a wrong message. So, you're saying they should lie? > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > If you get killed, you literally lost nothing, so just rinse and repeat. The participation will still be on. > Here's the thing though.... > The people who start threads like this or make comments about how they "loathe any form of pvp" ect? > They lose quite a bit. Yes, they do. > These people have their power fantasy shattered every time they are downed in a competitive environment. That feeling that they are "good at the game", that their build is strong, that they are properly geared, that is fed to them after countless hours of a personal story without challenge and an open world that puts them in a bubble being carried is gone. > One has to look no further than the delusion feeding the hyperbole in this thread. The overblown comments about gankers at every exit, and a toxic environment (that is simply far less prevalent than it is in PvE) should show you that a significant number of players cannot accept a single loss. Rather than improving their game they will instead argue for rule changes or invent problems that aren't there just to soothe their egos and get their shinies. > > It's the exact same hubris that powers the "HoT is too hard" threads, the weak complaints about aggro ranges on PoF maps and the majority of "balance" posts in the PvP forum. > Some people experience significant distress when confronted by their own lack of skill. It makes them do and say plenty of irrational things. Bullkitten. Sorry, i can't really sum it up in any nicer way. You are significantly messing up things here. I know personally players that are completely fine with raiding (at any level), but are unable to take the stress of a PvP encounter of any kind. Even when they end up winning, btw. I also know some players that very much like SPvP, that absolutely angry with the difficulty of raid encounters. Players that are completely okay with often-seen SPvP flaming reacting like someone killed their dog when someone nicely explains a specific raid mechanic to them. And those that feel that it's perfectly okay to use some less than nice words when talking about less than perfect raid performance frothing at the mouth after the person that killed them in a PvP mode danced on their corpse. Every game mode requires (or just favours) a certain mindset. If you don't have it, it can easily diminish your enjoyment of said mode, or even make you angry at things other players might not even notice. And even if sometimes it may seem that some modes have similar mindsets attached to them, the differences can sometimes be very important and impactful as them. So, don't just generalize stuff like that, because all it does is talk a lot about you, personally.

> @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > > > Emphasis on: _But is this really what GW2 should be?_ Not a statement at all btw, it's not a rhetorical question, just something to think about. It doesn't have to be answered here either, guess everyone should just answer this for themselves. Something to think about for Anet as well if someone reads this. > > Well, that is exactly what makes GW2 unique. Drop this, and it would truly just become "another wow/ffxiv, but worse". > > I can see that for some players but I personally disagree. GW2 has a lot of stuff that separates it from all the other mmos, first and foremost the extremely smooth and fluid combat and movement system and a truly equalized sPvP system (aka where gear has no impact) - literally no other mmo can offer that and that's exactly the _only_ reason I stuck with GW2 until now... BnS has gear-agnostic pvp but only in 1v1 arenas so I don't care for that. Personally, i don't think those are enough to make the game stand out in the already heavily reduced MMORPG market. Especially considering the fact that Anet seems to suffer from a significant lack of resources compared to what would be then their main competition. Especially considering that the whole combat system that makes the combat "smooth and fluid" has some problems of its own (and that SPvP was never an important part of this game, even when devs still hoped otherwise) Basically, to survive, GW2 needs a niche - needs to target a group of players that significantly differs than target groups of other MMORPGs. And that group needs to be big enough to matter. In current situation, that niche is the group of casual to semi-casual players that aren't too keen on progression and constantly running in hamster wheels. If Anet were to abandon that group, it would end up competing directly with all other MMORPGs for exactly the same players. While, as i said, suffering from significant lack of resources compared to many of the competitors. As i see it, it would be a fight GW2 simply cannot win. So yes, for good or bad, GW2 basically has to remain a game that primarily concentrates on Open World and Living Story - the very elements at which it is significantly better than all other MMORPGs around. Like you said: "If you are serious about PvE and progression then there's simply no way Anet could catch up and offer a great alternative.". You are right here - there's no way GW2 can ever compete on that field. So, it should not try to. This of course doesn't mean it can't have more serious and hardcore PvE content, but trying to make them a main point of this game is just asking to woluntarily give up on its main advantage over all competition. And that just wouldn;t be a sensible thing to do. So, again, GW2 very much **does** stand out in some aspects on the MMORPG market. It's just mainly aspects you personally don't seem to value. > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > I think this will be my last activity on this forum. Don't let some people get to you.

> @"Friday.7864" said: > > @"Rauderi.8706" said: > > > @"Friday.7864" said: > > > Think it would be much harder to get a DS meta going after a few months if people could farm map currency in home instance. > > > I also want to go the lazy route, but if I'd ever want an ach or map completion there it would be more of a pain than it has to be. > > > It's good to give people a reason to come back to a map. > > > > Conversely, if it were *easier* to get into a valid Dragon Stand map (y'know, without spamming party finder and constant "join in.." taxiing, and *literally dying* to secure a map), we might have more people willing to just do it and not need a home instance pod. I fully support having one available, though! > > Dunno, I never had those issues. While I was farming for leges I managed to join when they were at 3 bosses or about to kill mordy a few times. > Guess it depends when you play. Oh, i remember at some point that the map locked at entering the final fight with Mordy stage and allowed only people that dc'd, but no new arrivals. Did that change?

> @"Psykewne.3025" said: > Yeah I'm not convinced you read my question properly, it was to the OP who claimed he was doing t4 fractals after 3 weeks but also said he had no ascended gear. I'm pretty sure at this point the OP was just a troll. Possibly. Or he indeed was running t4's with no ascended. Which would not make the situation any better.

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > @"Randulf.7614" said: > > The issue with map completing WvW is that you had to often wait for the map to rotate to get certain POI's and vistas or getting decent match ups. I mean Stonemist alone was a pain for many. Ultimately this took things out of your hands and meant players were gated too much by logging in at the right time, rather than being able to work on it as and when. It also meant wvw ended up with too many people ignoring the content and just running around for map expl,oration stuff which really defeated the point of the game mode > > Ah, that makes sense yeah. But then when you did a legendary, it was even **more** legendary because of the work put into it! :wink: There was nothing legendary about it. You just waited till your server happened to be the right color. Or moved to a server with bigger population/better coverage.