Blaeys.3102

> @"Nemmar.8491" said:

> I do think you raise a valuable point.

>

> Raids are out of reach of many players. The way mmo's tend to solve this is to have a "Story mode" where you queue up with random players to experience the story. But the other difficulties are not only harder but have more abilities.

>

> I do wish Anet made a system of the sort because i honestly don't have time to raid, but i'd love to experience and see the raid instances.

Agree with every word.

The problem comes with developer resources. They don't even have the resources needed to get Living Story updates out the door complete and on time. Not only was chapter three late (by their own admission), but it was rushed and incomplete (again, by their own words).

No one has been a bigger advocate for story modes in raids than me these past few years, but I just don't see it happening with the resources they currently have. There are just more important parts of the game than raids (first and foremost - getting living story and new maps up to acceptable standards).

That said, it does mean the player skill and playstyle issues with raids will likely be the norm. That means they to avoid putting anything in raids that a. ties in with the rest of the game/story in even a tangential manner, and b. be very careful about putting anything in raids (skins, items, storylines) that would have mass appeal and create a have/have not culture in the game. Things like the Wizard's Tower (which players have been asking about since day one) have to be off limits when it comes to raids. Without the resources to expand raids to include a wider skill and playstyle range, they really don't have a choice.

> @"Tiawal.2351" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > The once a week WvWers and the players who don't take it as seriously - but still have friends there that they like to play with often - will likely find themselves without a real place in the new system.

> >

> > As I've said before, I see this marking the end of WvW for players like myself and many I know. The idea that we aren't active enough to have a place in a 500 player alliance, alongside the possibility of ending across the field from friends we play with now will leave many simply saying "what's the point?" and giving up on the game mode altogether.

> >

>

> "The once a week WvWers and the players who don't take it as seriously"

> Now really, what these players can wish for? WvW is a 24/7 game mode. If one logs in once a week... what kind of contribution is that?

> If everyone would be like this, WvW could be safely deleted.

>

> That doesn't mean you are not welcome to join, even for a few minutes. But the game mode shouldn't be adjusted at all to fit these kind of... visitors. That includes me as well; if I just log in every day -- just to do my WvW daily, and then done; then my "activity" shouldn't even be taken into account when balancing the servers. Because I'm not helping my team at all.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the more casual player who currently enjoys running 1-2 nights a week with friends who may be more serious about it (which I suspect is a larger group than Anet realizes), this change will basically mean the end of wvw for them. Not only will the appeal of the game mode be gone - there will be active reasons to avoid going in at all.

I really think they can do better than this.

> @"Poseidon.3852" said:

> You know, this can be made into a discussion about raids themselves, rather just specifically about if the Wizard Tower should be a raid or not.

>

> There are several points to consider in this discussion:

>

> 1. Should raids even be a thing?

> 2. Should raids have meaningful content?

> 3. Should raids have adjustable difficulties?

>

>

> Now, my personal take on the points is as follows:

>

> 1. Yes. Raids should be a thing and in my opinion, they are a staple mark of the MMORPG genre. Sure, the new "playing alone together" mentality of most new-ish games in that genre is... practical, but having content for which you actually have to rely on other people is great. Of course, other people are never as reliable as we would like them to be or sometimes we lack the commitment to be reliable, but ultimately, to have some content for those who do want to make great efforts together, coordinate and so on, is a very needed aspect of this genre. If it goes away from the genre, where to go to when you want to rely on other people to clear hard content? Literally, no other genre has that feature and it is definitely something that is making the genre appealing and unique. I, personally, don't raid because I don't have the time, but if I catch the time with a prolonged holiday, injury or whatever, I would enjoy it tremendously. Also, even if I never catch the time and never raid, I find it amazing to see players with unique titles and armor-skins who managed to clear that content! Being a big fan of the story of GW2, I can just read it up or watch a video about what's happening, and to dream how it would be nice to be in this epic fight and manage to clear that content is something that gives you the motivation to play the game nevertheless.

>

> 2. In my opinion, raids should have meaningful and up-to-date content too. I love fractals and how they explain and let you re-live certain events of the past. I mean, if you are even halfway interested in the story, do a complete fractals run where you pay attention to everything and explore the whole map, instead of just rushing through trash mobs and killing the boss. Don't get me wrong, I rush farm fractals too, but at least once do a slow, exploration run. There is so much shown to us through fractals that it's great! However, as I said, most of it is about events from the past. Raids are, therefore, the perfect opportunity to put some content about the present. I am not saying that they should put Main Story content in raids, and frankly, they are not doing that. But they should have meaningful, interesting stories that are canon in the raids. If it was just some rehashed enemies with more difficult mechanics just for the challenge and to eventually get some gear, it would be kind of lame. However, if you these side stories that are meaningful and impactful for the world, without being the Main Story, it just feels great doing it. Of course, once you digested all of it, it will be just a mark on your weekly to-do list, but having those villains that actually feel strong and tell a story is great! Imagine if you could defeat Dhuum with a bunch of uncoordinated newbies with masterwork and rare gear... I, personally, would feel like kitten... Putting those enemies in raids is exactly where they belong so that they feel strong, menacing, threatening as the story wants us to believe they are.

>

> 3. Lastly, should raids have adjustable difficulties? To be honest, they should, but this needs to be done very, very carefully. For example, they could add a Story Mode that is not harder than a t3 fractal (without the agony), but literally make the rewards near to non-existent. You complain that you can't do raids and therefore you are locked out of story-content? Cool, here, have the raid without getting anything but the story from it. Have fun. I think that this is very fair. Besides that, I wouldn't add any additional difficulties, since Guild Wars 2 does not have item level and you mostly do raids for skins and mats and such, therefore they would need to create a whole new line of skins for the different modes.

>

> Well, that's my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it, of course.... but.. Wizard's Tower should be either a raid or something really special like Dalaran in WoW or an intriguing city with a darkish theme and lots of stuff to do and explore.

The problem is that the resources obviously do not currently exist to do all three of these, which begs the question, if they cannot do it right, should they be doing it at all? Given the resources they have now, I think the logical way forward is yes to point 1, but no to 2 and 3. Without addressing the play skill and style barriers, Guild Wars lore related story in raids is a very bad idea.

Basically, given the current resource levels, raids have to be a considered a completely separate game designed for a different audience than most of GW2.

Integrated - or even interesting - story aligned with any game lore in GW2 raids is a tricky topic.

Part of the problem is expectations based on other, more raid-centric MMOs, where raids are often integral to the plot or tell interesting "side" stories that fit with the lore. Those games can get away with that because, in practically every case, they include some way to account for varying player skill and playstyles (things like gear/level treadmills or multiple difficulty modes).

GW2 doesn't have any of those elements, and - unfortunately, likely never will (multiple modes, I mean - treadmills definitely don't belong in GW2). The resources needed to add these things to raids currently do not exist and are unlikely to manifest in the near future, given that the Living Story team is also seemingly shorthanded (based on their admission that the last LS chapter was late and incomplete). This leaves us with the current lacking nature of raids, which - by the developers' own words - are designed semi exclusively for a small subset of GW2 players.

With that in mind, there is simply no place for compelling lore focused or integrated story in GW2 raids. It only creates an anti-casual perception that goes against what GW2 has always been. I - and many others - think they have already crossed the line of what is acceptable with the Saul Dalessio and Bloodstone explosion storylines. We made that clear to Bobby Stein, one of the lead writers, in the old forum - and he seemed to at least understand a little (and, in fairness, the last raid seems to be better about avoiding major ties to the rest of the game).

As it is, raids feel shoehorned into the game and out of place for many players. The developers don't have the resources to properly fix that, meaning they will continue to feel like a separate game altogether. Adding interesting lore focused story elements would only serve to shine a light on the divide they create in the community and - as I am sure Anet is fully aware by now - not be good for the game in any way. The Wizard's Tower is only one example of content that shouldn't be used in raids.

I see the competitive and gameplay benefits of a system like this, but there is a cost that I don't think Anet has fully thought through. Following a troubling trend of the past few years, the more casual players will be the ones that truly lose out. The once a week WvWers and the players who don't take it as seriously - but still have friends there that they like to play with often - will likely find themselves without a real place in the new system.

Additionally, this will raise the barrier for entry for new players. The chance that they will be welcome in any real wvw guild or alliance will be low - creating a wider divide between the hardcore players and the more casual in our community (a group that Anet used to care a lot about).

As I've said before, I see this marking the end of WvW for players like myself and many I know. The idea that we aren't active enough to have a place in a 500 player alliance, alongside the possibility of ending across the field from friends we play with now will leave many simply saying "what's the point?" and giving up on the game mode altogether.

I really hope Anet reconsiders - either making it easier to keep our communities together - or scrapping this idea completely. What is outlined is a bad idea and I know they can do better.

Do better Anet.

> @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > > It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

> > > >

> > > > This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

> > >

> > > nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

> > >

> >

> > It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

> >

> > Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

> >

> > Anet needs to do better than this.

>

> If you're going to restrict yourself to getting into a particular hard-core guild as a casual player, then you are creating your own problem. You're asking anet to stop doing something that will improve the game for many people for the sake of a minority who refuse to look for other casual players to ally with. There will be *plenty* of non-elitist, non-hardcore alliances out there for you. Stamping your feet and insisting that you must play with only these particular players is a very narrow viewpoint.

>

> You were new to the game once, you didn't know any of those people. You met them and became friends with them. Don't lock yourself into thinking you can only play with people you've met in the past few years. Meeting new people is how you picked up those existing friendships in the first place.

You obviously don't want to understand the situation. It has nothing to do with finding a particular kind of group - it is about wanting to keep a group of friends together a couple of nights a week in this game mode - friends that I know by name today - without forcing them to choose between their hardcore wvw relationships and with people like me and my guild. Those people Ive met in the past few years actually mean something to me. I hate that this system will force them to make these kinds of decisions. It is just unacceptable in any form.

Again, I respect that you have a different opinion about how the game works, but, for me, those friendships aren't something I want to replace. The idea that they will have to give up playing with their hardcore WvW friends to include my guild is unacceptable. The idea that if we might not be a part of their alliance because of the ridiculously low cap, which means there is a chance we might have to fight against them in WvW, is also unacceptable.

For people like that (and I know there are plenty of them out there), that only leaves one option - WvW wont be a part of the game for us anymore. And that should be unacceptable to ArenaNet. It seems like they are looking for any way they can to push casual players out of large portions of the game.

ArenaNet has to do better than this.

> @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

> >

> > This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

>

> nonsense, I'm hearing talk from more than one alliance and they are far more interested in playing with friends and fun people than they are in excluding the non-elites. I'm sure those will exist, but I have yet to run into any alliance talking about "skill entry requirements" or anything along those lines. There will be plenty of alliances for more casual players.

>

It is definitely not nonsense. The people I play with on the 1-2 days I do go into WvW play with a lot of other hardcore WvW players - and among their existing guilds, they definitely number at least 500 players (not all play at once or are even very active, but they will not want to be left out). Me - and the 20 or so other members of my guild that only go into WvW a few days a week - would have to take the place of some of those hardcore players in order to be in their alliance. And their alliance would be the only one we are interested in. We have been playing with some of those people - in our casual way - for YEARS now. And I know that isn't a unique case. It is the obvious (to players if not to devs) problem we are going to run into if this system goes live. Alliances and WVW guilds will have to make some very tough decisions among their groups of friends.

Call it nonsense all you want. You obviously aren't in a situation where this will be a factor, and for that, I am glad - but others will be.

Anet needs to do better than this.

> @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > > > > @"Nick.6972" said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from other game modes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Current state of affairs:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > * Instanced content (raids/fractals) players unhappy with release cadence

> > > > > > * Open world players unhappy with release cadence

> > > > > > * WvW players unhappy with mode neglect

> > > > > > * sPvP players unhappy with mode neglect

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yeah, you're right. The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from _one or more aspects of ongoing development_, and there are plenty of players in all of those areas already unhappy with how infrequent they see anything new. That's a pretty large downside.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Correct. IMO the only valid opinion for not doing something like this is that it would require resources from other areas (i.e. Living World) to be moved to raids. It's been 2.5 years of discussion about the validity of easy mode content.

> > > > >

> > > > > We're at the people where the folks who want easy mode the request needs to change from "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons" to "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons and I want it at the expense of living world content". If that isn't something folks are willing to sacrifice, then there will be no change.

> > >

> > > > I've said it before. Raids in their current form are unsustainable long term in the game. Without compromises that hardcore raiders are dead set against, they cannot justify the resources needed for a release schedule short enough to keep the attention of hardcore raiders the way that raid focused MMOs can - meaning the raiding community in the game will get smaller and smaller over time (which will, in turn, mean fewer resources and longer wait times).

> > > >

> > >

> > > I agree with pretty much everything you said as well, but i think this statement is putting the "problem" on the hardcore community. IMO, the opposition that you have received in your easy mode suggestions by the raiding community over the past 2.5 years is WAY less than the outbreak that would be fewer living world release for more raid resources.

> > >

> > > IMO it isn't a "hard core players complaining won't let easy mode happen" problem...its a "there's no way the community, the $$$, and ANET's vision align with taking resources away from living world world and put them on raids" problem.

> > >

> >

> > The problem isn't on any specific group. The problem is simple mathematics.

> >

> > Basically, the only way to change anything about the current model for raids (which, again, I think is unsustainable long term) would be for them to hire new resources. They can't take them from the already shorthanded LS team. To bring in new resources for raids, they would have to up the appeal of raids in some way. Shortening the release time from 7 to even as low as 5 months wouldn't accomplish that (hardcore raiders churn through the content in, at most, 2 months). Tweaking old raids to add lower difficulties would bring in more players by lowering the difficulty barrier to entry. With that in mind, should they ever add new resources, it makes sense - from a fiduciary perspective - that the first step would be to use them to expand the target playerbase for raids. Once that is done, they could look at shortening the development cycle.

> >

> > Im not saying that will happen. As we both point out, it unlikely that they will add new resources either way - and, if they do, the logical place to do so is on LS, not raids.

>

>

> You said it better than me. That is effectively what I meant, just worded a bit incorrectly.

>

> I'm genuinely happy that after all of the discussion after the past few years that we've come to the same ideology/solution/insert other words here.

We more or less do at this point, but for the record, I still believe that raids as they stand now are not sustainable - and will probably not stand the test of time in the game. I would like to see raids as part of the game, but I simply do not see how they can keep hardcore raiders engaged long term. It isn't really a change of heart on my part - just a realization that they simply do not have the resources at ANet to do them in a way that will keep enough players in them long term.

And, with that in mind, I do strongly believe that any new developmental resources dedicated to raids (which again, should come after any additions to the LS teams who obviously need it right now) would need to first and foremost be used to add easy modes to existing raids - to widen the pool of raiders and justify any future work.

> @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > > @"Nick.6972" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from other game modes.

> > > >

> > > > Current state of affairs:

> > > >

> > > > * Instanced content (raids/fractals) players unhappy with release cadence

> > > > * Open world players unhappy with release cadence

> > > > * WvW players unhappy with mode neglect

> > > > * sPvP players unhappy with mode neglect

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, you're right. The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from _one or more aspects of ongoing development_, and there are plenty of players in all of those areas already unhappy with how infrequent they see anything new. That's a pretty large downside.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Correct. IMO the only valid opinion for not doing something like this is that it would require resources from other areas (i.e. Living World) to be moved to raids. It's been 2.5 years of discussion about the validity of easy mode content.

> > >

> > > We're at the people where the folks who want easy mode the request needs to change from "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons" to "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons and I want it at the expense of living world content". If that isn't something folks are willing to sacrifice, then there will be no change.

>

> > I've said it before. Raids in their current form are unsustainable long term in the game. Without compromises that hardcore raiders are dead set against, they cannot justify the resources needed for a release schedule short enough to keep the attention of hardcore raiders the way that raid focused MMOs can - meaning the raiding community in the game will get smaller and smaller over time (which will, in turn, mean fewer resources and longer wait times).

> >

>

> I agree with pretty much everything you said as well, but i think this statement is putting the "problem" on the hardcore community. IMO, the opposition that you have received in your easy mode suggestions by the raiding community over the past 2.5 years is WAY less than the outbreak that would be fewer living world release for more raid resources.

>

> IMO it isn't a "hard core players complaining won't let easy mode happen" problem...its a "there's no way the community, the $$$, and ANET's vision align with taking resources away from living world world and put them on raids" problem.

>

The problem isn't on any specific group. The problem is simple mathematics.

Basically, the only way to change anything about the current model for raids (which, again, I think is unsustainable long term) would be for them to hire new resources. They can't take them from the already shorthanded LS team. To bring in new resources for raids, they would have to up the appeal of raids in some way. Shortening the release time from 7 to even as low as 5 months wouldn't accomplish that (hardcore raiders churn through the content in, at most, 2 months). Tweaking old raids to add lower difficulties would bring in more players by lowering the difficulty barrier to entry. With that in mind, should they ever add new resources, it makes sense - from a fiduciary perspective - that the first step would be to use them to expand the target playerbase for raids. Once that is done, they could look at shortening the development cycle.

Im not saying that will happen. As we both point out, it unlikely that they will add new resources either way - and, if they do, the logical place to do so is on LS, not raids.

It is likely that this will effectively be the thing that runs most of your more casual players out of WvW. By limiting alliances to such a small size, you are going to force them to choose those people that play wvw the most. The ones, like myself, that only go in once or twice a week, will - rightfully so - be passed over for those that wvw 5-7 nights. And, for those players left out, they aren't going to want to go into wvw if it means they not only cannot play with their friends, but that might, through RNG, end up fighting against the people they consider teammates now.

This is poorly thought out and will only hurt the game mode, imo. You really need to do better, Anet.

> @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"Nick.6972" said:

> > >

> > > The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from other game modes.

> >

> > Current state of affairs:

> >

> > * Instanced content (raids/fractals) players unhappy with release cadence

> > * Open world players unhappy with release cadence

> > * WvW players unhappy with mode neglect

> > * sPvP players unhappy with mode neglect

> >

> > Yeah, you're right. The only valid argument to be made here is that designing an easy mode would take resources away from _one or more aspects of ongoing development_, and there are plenty of players in all of those areas already unhappy with how infrequent they see anything new. That's a pretty large downside.

> >

> >

>

> Correct. IMO the only valid opinion for not doing something like this is that it would require resources from other areas (i.e. Living World) to be moved to raids. It's been 2.5 years of discussion about the validity of easy mode content.

>

> We're at the people where the folks who want easy mode the request needs to change from "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons" to "I want easy mode because of XYZ reasons and I want it at the expense of living world content". If that isn't something folks are willing to sacrifice, then there will be no change.

I have been one of the most vocal advocates of easy mode, and I agree with what you are saying here.

Raids are in a classic Catch-22 situation. Right now, the niche nature of raids means they have to take a back seat to the rest of the game. It doesn't make sense to dedicate new resources to a mode that is, by their own admission, designed for a smaller percentage of players. At the same time, raiders are not happy with the release cadence. But, to justify adding the resources needed to improve that cadence, they would need to make raids appealing to more players - which would mean a lower barrier to entry for more casual players.

I've said it before. Raids in their current form are unsustainable long term in the game. Without compromises that hardcore raiders are dead set against, they cannot justify the resources needed for a release schedule short enough to keep the attention of hardcore raiders the way that raid focused MMOs can - meaning the raiding community in the game will get smaller and smaller over time (which will, in turn, mean fewer resources and longer wait times).

Meanwhile, the living world is suffering from all of this. We are getting incomplete maps and metas that were obviously rushed out the door and (again) by their own admission, later than planned. If anything, they need to move current resources from raids to living story. That part of the game is too deeply tied to the identity and success of the game.

I want raids to succeed and be a part of the game, but I don't see how that can happen long term given the resources they currently have available to them.

While this was probably the best action for the game and the players, the people involved - and their families - were likely devastated by this. One is young and, given her social media history, has likely just destroyed her chance at any kind of real career in her chosen field. The other is a long time industry veteran who's salary was probably a big part of his family's livelihood. While it might be fun to some to look down on them for some truely stupid behavior, it's worth remembering that we all do and say stupid things. These are real people with real lives that are probably in deep turmoil today.

So while, as a customer and player, Im glad this worked out the way it did, I also know there was nothing positive about what just happened. Anet lost some real talent (no matter how stupid their recent behavior was), families (spouses, kids, pets, etc) lost needed income and someone likely lost their lifelong dream job. Nothing about that is worth celebrating.

1. My guild

2. Large scale design that encourages cooperation and friendly gameplay across a map

3. Experimental development in which Anet isn't afraid to try something new/different, even if it doesn't end up working out

For everyone criticizing these people being fired - take a closer look at what Mike Obrien wrote. "As a result, they are no longer with the company." He never said they were fired. All we know is they are gone. It is just as likely that the company offered a way out of this and they chose to leave instead. We just don't know - and likely never will - and I am sure this decision wasn't made casually.

At the end of the day, it is probably just better for everyone that this is over and behind them.

> @"jan.7915" said:

> U could simple geht Cheap exotic bersi gear for solo pve.

This is probably the course I will take.

Still curious what people think about Plaguedoctor stats for a healing engi.

Since the change to medkit, I've been running with and loving a pure healing Scrapper - mainly in open world, fractals and WvW (and one Mathias kill). Im running HP/Power/Toughness gear with pistol/shield, med kit, bulwark gyro, elixir gun, thumper turret (for blast finishers and cc) and supply crate. It is a lot of fun and I feel very useful in most situations.

The problem is - when I took it into the latest living story - I learned exactly how weak it is in terms of damage output. To counter that, I was thinking of switching to the new plaguedoctor stats (condi damage/vitality/concentration/healing power) and was wondering if people had thoughts about it. My thinking is that it will synergize better with the pistol and the elixir gun, giving me better damage output while still allowing for strong healing (and adding concentration for better boon sharing).

I would welcome any thoughts or advice on this.

> @"Twyn.7320" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > I don't think the answer is to reduce the map size. The large scale open world content is their brand differentiator - it is what sets them apart from other MMOs and video games. They need to dedicate all of the resources needed to make that part of the game as amazing as it can be, even if it means other areas have longer development cycles.

>

> The problem is though: How can they justify putting so many resources into a map, if all of the lasting content is in one section of it? If all of the map was used for a meta or something, then it'd be a snazzy rationale, as shown by Heart of Thorns. However, Path of Fire/LWS4 has purposefully used a quarter of the map for replayable content and left the rest to be explored once and never again. It seems a bit silly IMO when they could divert resources elsewhere to the other modes and capitalise on their USPs, such as WvW and PvP, whilst maintaining the replayable content of the Living World maps by only keeping the relevant sections. I believe that if you're making something without the desire to put replayable content in it, it needs to be re-evaluated until content of that nature can be placed in it. A notable example is Atholma in Sandswept. It's a stunning location, but it literally has no purpose apart from being a story instance. If the map meta started with an assault on Atholma, leading to a push-back all the way to Rata Primus, then it'd be justified to have resources diverted to that area, but it doesn't.

>

>

The answer is simple and something they have done for a long time now - triggerable content and dynamic events. With more resources, they can put more into the explorable areas of the map, including triggerable content like bounties or extended dynamic event chains.

I agree that we need things like the assault on Atholma example you provide - that is exactly why they need to dedicate more resources to these maps. That may mean diverting resources from other areas of the game, but it would be worth it.

I think better support for guilds could be the thing that saves open world in this game - for everyone. Implementing a guild mission system that essentially mirrors the individual daily system already in the game would provide the core organization needed to invigorate content throughout the game. Something as simple as "complete 10 dynamic events in Frostgorge" (just an example) would ensure that guilds are in that zone on a given week, meaning that players looking for something to do would know where to go. At the same time, it would allow Anet to develop meta events that require a higher level of organization (eg, a weekly mission like "complete the Serpent's Ire meta in Domain of Vabbi").

Yes, guilds should (and many like mine do) do things together anyway. A revamped mission system would just take advantage of that to provide core organization for everyone in the game - even those not in guilds - by focusing guild activities in predictable locations.

This game is about large community content. The sooner Anet accepts that and begins supporting it in more ways, the sooner we get a game that is truly unique in the marketplace.

I don't think the answer is to reduce the map size. The large scale open world content is their brand differentiator - it is what sets them apart from other MMOs and video games. They need to dedicate all of the resources needed to make that part of the game as amazing as it can be, even if it means other areas have longer development cycles.

The one exception to that would likely be WvW - which is basically the pvp version of what we see in open world. Those two areas are their marketing cornerstones - again, setting them apart from the sea of other games out there. Improving upon those two areas only strengthens their position as the best community focused MMO ever made.

GW2 has a bit of an identity/brand issue right now. At one point, the game was an amazing community focused experience in which players and guilds came together in world PVE and WvW to tackle challenges together. Fractals and 5 player pvp matches offered smaller group experiences without feeling like they detracted from the spirit of the game.

That game is still there, but in their effort to cater to the more hardcore audience with raids, it is less evident - and definitely less polished - than it was a few years ago. I agree that a change is needed - and that it probably should include diminishing the role raids play in the game.

Anet has developed the best large group/community focused game ever made, imo (MMO or otherwise). They should accept that crown and own that game category by focusing more effort into that area. Re-implement the guild activity team and use guilds as cornerstones to implement more complex and interesting content into the open world for everyone (not just guilds - they would only serve as the organized core). Pare back on raid development and focus on delivering higher quality open world and WvW content. Keep fractals and pvp as the small group experience, but make those teams secondary to the larger effort (and, of course, making sure there is always a way more casual players can enjoy those content areas) - again, owning that community focused MMO brand.

Watering down their brand likely resulted in short term gains as new hard core players tried the game out, but - long term - trying to segment the game into different parts for different kinds of players will only hurt their marketing and sales. It's branding 101.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > Three questions:

> > * The Gandara meta was obviously rushed out the door to meet an internal deadline (only 1 path used, map isn't finished, final boss is VERY generic). What was the original vision for the meta and do you think you will be able to revisit and actually implement it? (primarily talking about gameplay content more than rewards, which you have already addressed)

> > * What are you doing to make sure this doesn't happen in the future?

> > * The icon for the plaguedoctor gear shows a historic plaguedoctors mask, but the armor itself is generic. Is this something else that was maybe cut due to a missed deadline? And, if so, is this something you plan to address in the future?

> >

> > There are great elements in this update, but it is obvious to anyone that's played it that is isn't finished. We know you can do better, because you have done better. I love this game and really hope this isn't an indication of things to come.

>

> I personally wouldn’t call it unfinished. Just because it’s lacking in some areas based on personal preferences doesn’t mean that the episode itself is incomplete. That said, I do wish they did a meta similar to HoT again.

>

> Oh and Gandara has had three bridges for the last 12 or so years.

>

> https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gandara,_the_Moon_Fortress/Map

It's more than personal preference - they themselves confirmed that it was delivered incomplete in the Reddit AMA today. I still love the game - just questioning whether or not they plan to add to it in the foreseeable future to bring it up to their original vision for the meta event.

Three questions:

* The Gandara meta was obviously rushed out the door to meet an internal deadline (only 1 path used, map isn't finished, final boss is VERY generic). What was the original vision for the meta and do you think you will be able to revisit and actually implement it? (primarily talking about gameplay content more than rewards, which you have already addressed)

* What are you doing to make sure this doesn't happen in the future?

* The icon for the plaguedoctor gear shows a historic plaguedoctors mask, but the armor itself is generic. Is this something else that was maybe cut due to a missed deadline? And, if so, is this something you plan to address in the future?

There are great elements in this update, but it is obvious to anyone that's played it that is isn't finished. We know you can do better, because you have done better. I love this game and really hope this isn't an indication of things to come.

I am sorry, but there are a number of people that will likely be left behind with a system like this. In my guild's situation, a number of us are PVX players and only head into WvW once or twice a week. At the same time, the people we go into WvW with (many in our existing guild) are more hardcore, but still enjoy the time they spend with us on those nights. Under the system described, those people will have to make difficult decisions about who is in and who is out - and that will leave a lot of people out and unable to play with the friends they can/do under the current system.

This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It is one that many people I know (and probably many others) are in.

These limits, as described, make no sense and will force communities to fragment as harder core players have to decide between competitive gameplay and their more casual friends.

I know you can do better than this, Anet.

So the alliance of guilds (which can each be up to 500 players) can be no bigger than 500 players across all of them?

Does anyone else see the hole in that logic?

This will be potentially devastating to many player communities that have formed across the past few years. I do not say this lightly. You are messing with something that affects a lot of people/friendships.

I sincerely hope you either reconsider or leave things as they are now.

Yes. As far as I know, most food items (not all) are only available if someone in the game crafts them. Of course, much of it (not all - some best in class is account bound) can then be sold on the TP, but it doesn't change the fact that it had to be crafted by someone.