Blaeys.3102

The fact that people are going back and forth so much about whether it is "side story" or not simply reinforces the idea that the entire "side story" concept is nothing more than semantics.

I'm pretty sure that some of the people in this thread could justify just about anything as side story. As a perfect example, I'm sure they would have called the Balthazar story arc a "side story" if it had happened in a raid - not because it was actually a side story, but rather because they could find some tiny part of it that separated it from the "main story" (in that case, because it didn't directly deal with the dragons). I'm sure they would have said the same of the Minister Cadeceus arc - and even the Scarlet story from season one.

None of these - including what is in the raids now - are side stories because, in a living world MMO, there is no such thing. All of the stories come together to create the world. Side story is a purely semantic term people are using to justify their point of view - nothing more than that.

The really important question is would the general GW2 population - the ones that live in the Living World - find them interesting to experience (again - important word - a youtube video is not the same thing)? The answer is, of course they would. The first raid kicked off the bloodstone storyline. Wing 4 provided closure to a storyline/character that many people cared about and speculated about for years.

So, once again - they need to tell these stories outside of raids - because, by their own admission, raids are balanced for a smaller percentage of the game's community. If they are not going to change that (and they recently said they have no plans to), then they need to be VERY careful about making sure raids are not a primary device for any aspect of the lore or story.

In the past 8-10 posts, we've seen the same people shift their argument from "these stories are unimportant, so non-raiders shouldn't care" to "these stories are so important that they deserve special treatment." That alone shows us that the argument is less about the story and more about people wanting to keep those dirty casuals out of every part of their corner of the playground. And that is the definition of elitist, imo.

If this were a raid centric game, where it was clear going in that the culmination of these stories would require raiding, then I could understand their inclusion. But it isn't. This game was set up - and more importantly, marketed - differently, even with HOT and POF (especially with POF, where they focused heavily on the storytelling aspects in their marketing). This game centers on the community experiencing the story content together (even things designated as "side" content - a term I still argue is pure semantics in this game). That is what it has always been - and what it is supposed to be now.

And, even if this were a raid centric game, I would argue that changes would be in order. Pretty much every successful MMO that has utilized raids as a storytelling tool has had to adapt their raid model to be more accessible to players of all skill levels and interests.

> @Lunateric.3708 said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > Whether or not it affects the main story is completely unimportant - especially if it involves lore characters or story. These are still stories that most players would like to be a part of - and that is all that really matters.

> >

> > Actually that's what really matters and there are already rumors about the next Raid also dealing heavily with GW1 lore. These are stories that deserve a good ending worthy of their importance and not a semi-afkable solo instance.

> >

> >

>

> This exactly. That kind of content **deserves** to be a raid.

And many players would say they deserve the experience of that story without changing the way they have played since the game came out.

This idea that only raiders deserve that experience is not only pure BS, it is belittling to the vast number of players who bought this game specifically to get away from that kind of elitist attitude. I rarely use the term elitist (I think it is overused and misused in most cases) - but here, where were talking about people believing they are owed a story experience or lore wrap up that others are not, it definitely applies.

And, I would expect backlash from players like the OP (and, of course, me, but I'm pretty much white noise to the devs at this point) if this is a trend they plan to continue. Let raids be about the fights/challenge (which is what most raiders seem to care about) and leave story to the rest of the game.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > I have slightly less issue with the story from the first three raid wings. The Saul D'Alessio storyline in wing four definitely took things too far though, imo.

> >

> > Raid story shouldnt touch the characters from lore (GW1 or GW2) or storylines that the general GW2 player would find compelling.

> >

> > Let raids be solely about the fights/challenge with extremely minimal narrative. That isn't a lot to ask.

>

> Raids can have characters from the lore of both games just fine, I expect the next Raid to also touch on major lore characters. This as long as it doesn't affect the main story of the game, finishing Saul D'Alessio's story in such an epic way was one step towards a good direction. Finishing old story threads in Raids, when they do not affect the main story, is the best way to finish them. In an epic and memorable way, not the way we finished Lazarus or Balthazar.

Whether or not it affects the main story is completely unimportant - especially if it involves lore characters or story. These are still stories that most players would like to be a part of - and that is all that really matters.

Hopefully, the developers (hopefully) understand that and take it into account moving forward.

And, to add, I think you will find most raiders do not care about story at all. They are there for the challenge. Tell the stories in more accessible areas of the game and leave raids focused solely on the fights/challenges. There is no reason to widen the divide between players on this issue any more than it already is (which I think was the point the OP was trying to get across).

I have slightly less issue with the story from the first three raid wings. The Saul D'Alessio storyline in wing four definitely took things too far though, imo.

Raid story shouldnt touch the characters from lore (GW1 or GW2) or storylines that the general GW2 player would find compelling.

Let raids be solely about the fights/challenge with extremely minimal narrative. That isn't a lot to ask.

I disagree. Considering new living story chapters typically come with a new open world map, I think the pace they set with season 3 was pretty good. Do players run out of things to do between chapters? - some do, definitely. But, I would argue that many of those same players consume content so fast it would be pretty much impossible for Anet to stay ahead of them and still deliver quality content at the same time.

You are definitely not the only player that feels that way. A few of us made it very clear when they put the Saul D'Alessio storyline in the last raid wing that they had crossed a line. Based on some comments one of the writers made shortly after, I think they understood why that was a bad idea. We can only hope that message got through to the decision makers.

While I would love (and have advocated loudly for many times) a story mode of some kind, the raid team leader indicated just after PoF that it isn't currently part of the plan. While I still believe they will eventually have to reverse that decision to keep raids alive long term, for now, that is something we just have to live with.

So, what we should see next week is a hardmode raid with little to no story or heavy lore tie-ins. Any story that would be of interest to the greater GW2 community (whether it is part of the dragon or elder god story arcs or not) should be told outside of raids for the foreseeable future.

Path of Fire is definitely worth the $30 price tag. Meta-wise, there are a few new contenders and a few little changes (that others have posted above), but it remains pretty close to what it was pre-PoF.

PoF is pretty much what they said it would be - a lot of new open world PVE content. The new zones are fun but, imo, do lack the replayability we saw in the HOT zones - hopefully something they are fixing with the next living story drop. The new elite specializations are mostly fun - if you look at them as solely being about fun gameplay and ignore the balance/competitive discussions.

Imo, there is more than enough new gameplay and pure content to warrant spending $30 on PoF.

At this point, I think the damage has been done. At the same time, Anet's response makes sense and I can live with it - as long as they don't make it any worse.

The telling part will be what comes next.

Most obvious - they need to stay away from RNG on the store as much as possible.

What we really need now are some well designed and reasonably priced (1000 gems or less) mount skins on the gem store. Let the "adoption license" be something we can work toward unlocking throughout the next year or two (which I will probably do with in game gold until I luck upon all the skins I want).

They need to show us their consumer friendly side right now. It is what we've come to expect from this company and this game.

I don't play any of those other games, so I can only judge what I see in this one.

**They need to sell one clearly defined item for one clearly defined price.**

It really is that simple.

When the only way to buy something is to potentially buy stuff you do not want, that is about as shady as you can get in any kind of shop (online, offline, whatever).

It is a deviation from the game and company environment we saw five years ago and something people need to be making a lot of noise about until they come to their senses.

The price per skin is fine imo.

The RNG element is extremely shady and non-Anet (at least the Anet that first created this game). That is where they go way too far.

Basically, this purchase model requires people to potentially buy multiple skins they do not want in order to get the one they do want. That crosses a line that I never expected Anet to cross.

Sell one clear item for one clear price and stop resorting to shady sales tactics that take advantage of consumer trust and encourage addictive buying behaviors. It really isn't more complicated than that.

It is worth adding - as Hex.2579 also states above - definitely invest in a mechanical keyboard if you enjoy gaming on the PC or semicompetitive activities such as raiding. For me, it makes more of a difference than the mouse.

The future of raid rewards will be skins and continued easier access to ascended gear with new stats (including Griever's). I think anything more than that will cause an uproar similar to the one we saw with the lore heavy story in wing four.

As far as the release timing, at this point, players need to accept that raids are not a primary feature of the game. They aren't meant for players who hop in and out of the game with long stretches of inactivity in between. They are side content designed to challenge those players who have mastered the game - part of which requires staying sharp and understanding the nuances of their characters. One or two a year - alongside new high level fractals - is plenty.

Given their current design philosophy regarding raids, any additional developer resources should go toward other parts of the game (some of which are seriously in need of more attention) where there is greater mass appeal.

Finally, the single biggest thing they need to do regarding the future of raids isn't really about the raids themselves - but rather about the characters we play. They desperately need to balance professions for PVE better. I can tell you first hand that the single biggest thing keeping most players from raiding right now is the current state of profession and playstyle balance.

There is a way they could accomplish this that would ensure some level of map coordination, build in a minimal reward and make the maps more alive all at the same time.

Right now, most open world bosses and event chains are designed for pugs - meaning they do not require any coordination whatsoever to complete.

If they added these bosses and events in as guild missions - and allowed guilds to trigger them at times other than their natural occurrence (similar to how the guild event flag works now), they could implement special challenge versions of the fight that do require varying levels of coordination. By tying them to guild activities, they would guarantee two things - that someone is actually "leading" the event and that at least a core group will be coordinating with one another. The slight reward would be guild influence and commendations (same as it is for missions now - with some possible new guild skins to help drive it forward.

This would further benefit those not in guilds - or pugs on a given map - by giving them access to fights and experiences that normally wouldn't be taking place - and by giving them access to the semi organization that comes with having a guild commander and core group on a map.

I know that the guild content team no longer exists at Anet, but I still think this would be a worthy endeavor that would benefit everyone in the game - while enabling the development of more challenging open world content (that assumes a higher level of coordination is present).

In the grand scheme of things, the forums, while an important tool for ongoing communication, are pretty far down the list of priorities when it comes to a fun gaming experience - archived forums even more so.

I have no problem with relegating the forum posts of old to the recycle bin.

And, while were at it, thank you to @Gaile Gray.6029 for making the forums - both old and new - a slightly less toxic place to discuss things.

I don't have high hopes based on past watered-down balance patches, but what we really need to see is a patch focused on diversifying the meta in raids and evening things out in PVP (two very separate things that, imo, would require separate balances based on the game mode).

Specifically in raids, they need to do something to tone down reliance on having alacrity, quickness and 25 might stacks 100% of the time. Nerf the abilities that allow groups to accomplish this - maybe even put in debuff mechanics similar to revealed to make it impossible to achieve - and make up for it in other ways (increased damage for the lesser used professions).

In PVP and WvW, there needs to be a better way to recognize enemy abilities (enemy spellbreaker bubbles should be a different color from allied ones for instance) and ways to counter niche abilities that have run rampant in the mode (spellbreaker bubble being one example).

Balance has never been GW2's strong point, but the current game really drives a need for it in ways that the game has never seen. They need to up their game when it comes to balance.

I like the spacing of enemies in POF. It seems like a good balance.

I know this was more about getting onto mounts/changing weapons, etc, but as a tip - if you need a few moments of breathing room to go afk or whatever without losing your position on the map, I find the best thing to do is usually to travel to the guild hall, do what you need to do, and then leave the hall. It puts you back in the same spot.

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> So how are we feeling about it now, more than a month later?

It didnt take a month. The AMA following the launch killed a lot of excitement for many. The idea that the GW2 development team does not consider new guild content to be part of the game in any way was very disheartening, not to mention mindboggling.

I still play with friends, but without something for guilds, it is harder to get excited about the future of the game.

According to the president of the company in the last AMA, they have dissolved the guild content team at Anet and we will only see new content centered on guilds if a "developer decides to do it in their free time" - which means we shouldn't expect anything for the foreseeable future, possibly ever.

I've said it a few times - this was the single biggest mistake that ArenaNet has made since the launch of the game. Guilds are important to the game. Choosing to abandon new guild focused development initiatives seems short sighted and out of touch with the game's community.

Alacrity should have never been a stacking buff to begin with. It should have been tied to the Chrono elite - a powerful skill reset with a very long cooldown. So instead of decreasing cooldowns by X percentage for x seconds, maybe (not saying this is the one right solution) it would be a skill that resets everyone in the party's skill bar once every 240 seconds (or whatever felt balanced). It should then apply a debuff similar to revealed that stopped it from being applied again for at least a minute.

As it is now, it is a profession defining skill that is critical to many raid groups - and there is no good way to fix it without destroying the "master of time" niche of the chrono (pretty much invalidating their role in competitive content).

Druids suffer from a similar issue - with Warriors and easy might stacking not far behind.

Every profession should have a niche, but those niches need to be actually useful across the game. Right now, you have three professions that many see as indispensable (or at least much more desired than others) and two professions (engineer, revenant) that almost no one will touch. And those in between are only valuable because of the damage they can bring.

Not sure there is an answer that doesn't require completely dismantling how combat works in GW2, however.

Ive said it before - as long as Anet keeps their shortsighted and very limiting view of what raids are and provide for the GW2 community, these kinds of threads will naturally reoccur on this subforum, on reddit and elsewhere.

I still believe that they will eventually have to take this route, but it may take a while before they realize it (due in large part to a very archaic team and developmental structure that doesn't allow for much flexibility). Their current model simply isn't sustainable. Raids as they are currently do not warrant delivering more than a handful each year, meaning the number of people in it for the pure hardcore experience will dwindle and move on to actual raid focused MMOs. The only way raids can warrant more developmental resources or a more aggressive schedule is to move to a more open model like the one the OP suggests.

I use a Mad Catz Cyborg MMO7 and have for years (across multiple games). I love it.

I wouldn't expect much. Guilds and anything guild related are an afterthought to Anet now and for the foreseeable future. They pretty much said as much during the last AMA.

Unfortunately, this is impractical. People leave and enter maps too quickly - meaning a commander may lose half his squad and be continually forced to repost.

What we need (and I realize is unlikely to happen) is a system with more functionality and better visibility. Specifically:

* A queue system for joining squadmates so that players do not have to spam "join in"

* Clearly listed map population numbers and caps - so, when joining a map, you can see that 105/150 people are there now (making it easier for large groups or guilds to select the right map when taxiing)

And, finally, the game needs to do a MUCH better job of keeping squads and guilds together when they change maps. The hardest boss in the game shouldn't be the stupid map queue.

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Ojimaru.8970 said:

> > As to your assertion that long delays between balance patches are bad for the game, what evidence do you have that it has affected Guild Wars 2? The patch cycle has largely been the same for the last five years, and yet boasts having over 11 million players worldwide (["The Path to the Desert, in Numbers," 2017](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-path-to-the-desert-in-numbers/)), and grossing nearly $12 million in sales in Q2 of 2017 (prior to PoF launch) ([NCSoft, 2017](http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/earnings.aspx)). Are these signs of a #dedgame?

>

> This just isnt true. The patch cycle has not been largely the same for the past five years. In fact for the first two we'd have patches every two weeks and have smaller balance patches alongside them. Now as of the last 3 years we've moved to a once a quarter balance change system which is largely leading to gameplay stagnation across all modes. To put this into numbers the first 2 years roughly contained 52 balance patches, while the past 3 years have contained 12.

>

> The reason Anet thinks this is acceptable is because they've started gating the idea of balance behind PvP seasons and largely adjusting around those windows instead of doing the per-mode balance when and where its required.

100% this.

Separating balance between PVE and PVP is imperative if they ever want to identify weak points in their design and fix them.

I would add that extending the boon cap - at least in instances - to 10 players is also important. As it stands, some boons (alacrity, quickness, might) are just too powerful, meaning groups of more than 5 players require redundant professions to maximize potential - design that runs counter to diverse gameplay.