Blaeys.3102

I made a similar thread late last year that received a good deal of positive feedback - https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/8794/the-importance-of-guilds-in-guild-wars-2/p1

Unfortunately, in an AMA not long after, ANET confirmed that they no longer have a guild content team and do not plan to create a new one. As perplexing as it can be, they have essentially abandoned the idea of guild-focused content.

That said, I still hold out hope that they change their minds on the topic. Guild content designed to make the open world more alive and interesting for everyone (not just those in a particular guild) could easily be the saving grace of the game long term.

The only problem is they obviously felt rushed to release Kourna and cut corners with the meta event and a few other things to get it out the door. We only use one of the three lanes during the meta, the final boss is boring and has almost no mechanics, plaguedoctor armor has no unique skins, 2/3 of Gandara is unused real estate, etc. They should have either held off and delivered it when it was complete or dedicated more resources from other teams to get it done.

All we can hope for now is that they revisit and complete the map before moving on to whatever is next.

The problem isn't that they shouldn't give us new maps with each release. The problem is they need to dedicate the resources needed to fully finish the content before pushing it out the door.

I also have to agree.

It is obvious that the meta isn't what they envisioned - two unused lanes, massive portion of unused map and a final boss with almost no mechanics whatsoever.

I really hope they revisit and fix it. For the most part, this is a solid update otherwise, but this issue makes the entire map feel somewhat lackluster compared to the past few they have delivered.

We know ANet can do better because we have seen them do better.

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> So we have a couple things in progress. First, is a new section of EOTM that is just an open arena that's suitable for large fights if people choose. I've been working on it this week and it's pretty far along.

>

> Second, we have a custom arena map in progress. The map is being setup for larger deathmatches. However, it uses the sPvP stat and armor system, which many GvGers also won't be interested in. Custom arenas also have a limitation of 10v10 currently.

>

> We still have no current plans to ever have GvG be a fully supported game mode, but we did want to do a few things for the fervent GvGers out there!

Please please please make the custom arena accessible via the guild hall rather than locked behind the current custom arena system. That was something you guys talked about doing (giving us a larger pvp area using pvp gear instanced from the guild hall) back when HOT launched and we first saw guild halls.

First of all, this update - once you get past the bugs - is one of, if not the, best storylines ANet has ever developed. As far as gameplay, there are some decent fights, but the open world stuff - and especially the final boss of the meta on the map - is bland and uninspired.

But the biggest issue that needs to be addressed is the Roller Beetle collection. While much of it is fun and encourages gameplay, a few points make it beyond frustrating and painful to do. The worst offender is the beetle event in Silverwastes - a veteran target that spawns about every 15 minutes and then dies within 3-5 seconds. I have talked to too many people who were standing right next to it and never got a hit in when it spawned.

This is poorly designed and should be addressed as soon as possible. Either take that requirement out of the collection or make the beetle a champion/spawn more often. Gameplay that requires sitting around in a map with nothing else to do hoping you aren't taking a drink or looking away when the boss spawns is just bad - and even worse, boring - game design.

Again, great update as a whole, but some of these seemingly little things can kill the experience.

> @"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said:

> This afternoon’s build corrected several bugs and issues, but we want you to know that we’re aware that not all issues were fully corrected with the build, including one blocking player progress in “Forearmed is Forewarned.” We will continue to work on the remaining issues and will post an update tomorrow morning to let you know the status of those efforts.

>

> We sincerely apologize for the delay and thank you for your continued patience. Please know that we understand the impact this is having and we are doing what we can to resolve this quickly and get everyone into the episode. We’re looking forward as much as you are to this being resolved and everyone being able to play.

While many of us understand that these things take time, the last patch note should have explicitly explained that this issue hasn't been fixed yet. The first thing almost everyone did was log in thinking they could continue their story - when in reality it simply let us advance at most another 15 seconds before experiencing the crashes over and over.

While the last fix is a positive thing, from a player's perspective, it didn't really do anything that let us continue the story or experience the update at all. The poorly worded patch notes were unclear - trying too hard to emphasize the progress made without explaining the actual impact on gameplay (which was next to nil).

Again, thank you all for the gargantuan effort you are obviously making, but you need to be upfront and clearer in how you communicate these things. All this did was make things more frustrating for players trying to experience the story.

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Hey there,

>

> We wanted to let you know we’re working on several bug fixes that we will be rolling out later this afternoon or early evening. While these will address many issues, we’ll continue to work on addressing bugs until all are corrected.

>

> In the meantime, we have implemented a redirect. Players who are attempting to load into the “Forearmed is Forewarned” story instance will be automatically redirected to Desert Highlands so that they can avoid the disconnection issue. The redirect, of course, will be removed as soon as it no longer is needed.

>

Thank you for all of your efforts.

Just to clarify, is the disconnection issue one you think will be addressed this afternoon/evening, or is that beyond the scope of the planned fixes for today? Just asking because it seems a little ambiguous based on your note above. Reality is a lot of people are probably waiting for the disconnect bugs specifically to be fixed more than anything (because it is the thing keeping us from getting to the new map/mount collection/etc). If it looks like that will be tomorrow, it would be nice to know just so we can plan the evening accordingly.

Again, thank you so much for the updates. Many of us do understand these things happen and do take time to fix.

I'm pretty sure the disconnect bug is hitting every single player. No one from my friend or guild list has made it into the second instance for more than a few seconds and none have made it to the new map.

To speed up the release cycle for raids, they have two options. The first would be to compromise on quality - which isn't really an option. The second is to add additional resources. Given that, by their own admission, the newest Living Story is running later than they want and that raids are purposefully designed for a more exclusionary group of players - this is also not an option. New resources would need to go to the core game first - to get it back onto the desired release schedule.

That means a longer wait time between raids. Given their current take on raids and how they fit in with the rest of the game, there really is no realistic way around that without negatively impacting the game as a whole.

There is already a thread about this in the Raid and Fractal subforum (with near identical comments from the same posters posting here).

> @"DutchRiders.2871" said:

> Niche markets can be very profitable, some companies make better net results when they start focussing a bit more on those. Not only cause the segment itself can generate alot of earnings but also because the main business can benefit heavily.

>

> To what extent does Anet benefit from raids? We dont know. But saying raids are niche so they should get no updates is at heart a bad argument if you look at how segments and companies actually interact.

>

>

It isn't about no updates. I think we all know they are working on raids.

It is about what they prioritize and dedicate additional resources toward when needed. Given that the current living story update is running late (by their own admission) and that both they and what seems like the majority of hardcore raiders have indicated that raids should be niche content, then it stands to reason that some (not all) resources should be shifted to better deliver on the living story content side. That means things like raids, designed for a smaller subset of players, have to take a backseat when it comes to development needs - and the result is likely a lengthened delivery cycle. It isn't about not wanting to see raids delivered faster - it is about where they need to use the limited resources they currently have.

Raiding focused MMOs succeed because raids are integrated into the entire experience. The raid boss is the final showdown - the big bad villain that everyone is working toward defeating. GW2 was built on a different model - one where the community bands together as a whole to take on that ultimate evil. And that model, while it has issues (like any), works. GW2 is a fun community focused game that is engaging and fun to play. The addition of raids - in the form they chose to implement them - are secondary to that model. Yes, they provide a nice challenge, but they will (and should) always be secondary to the larger GW2 PVE experience. And, as secondary content, they will never warrant priority resources or scheduling.

> @"bigbobpataki.4796" said:

>

> I still don't necessarily fully buy this whole "raiders want raiding to be a niche content." People are putting way too much weight into what the forums and the subreddit say. People who post on the forums and the subreddit are very likely a minority of the game population. Now take that and apply it only to one specific forum/topic (raiding), and you have a minority of a minority. We give a lot of weight to the opinions of people on the forums and the subreddit because they happen to be the most vocal players in the game. There is nothing wrong with being vocal, but we can't dismiss an entire game mode as "niche" and undeserving of content simply on the opinions and habits of people who post here.

>

> I instead rather look at places like training discords and guilds that run training. As of the time I'm posting this, it is the late afternoon on the east coast of the U.S., and the two most (I think) popular training discords, Raiders in Training and the Raider's Inn, have 931 and 887 people online respectively. That is close to a 1000 people getting notifications about both raids and training raids. Also take note that these are **veteran raiders** putting a lot of work into training new people to learn a difficult game mode. My guild runs training runs for people interested in raiding regularly on the weekends, and we always get new faces. There is a lot of interest, it is just that currently the game mode has bad in game tools like LFR, and is slowly dying and losing people due to a terrible release schedule.

>

> I'm not saying that raiding is the most popular gamemode (it isn't), and that it should have a release schedule on par with things like living story (it shouldn't), but this all does not justify a 7-8 month release schedule. In fact, I'd say that the inattention that raiding gets is in part causing the raiding community and interest to decrease.

>

To be clear, I do not believe raids are unpopular or unimportant - and if they can produce them faster, then more power to them. I would not have an issue with that.

What I would have an issue with is, in the current state of the game, moving any additional developmental resources (new or old) to their raid team. Just last week, Mike OBrien had to justify the delay of Episode 3. It stands to reason that any additional resources would be allocated to improve the developmental process for that part of the game first and foremost.

With that in mind, I say again that I have no issue with raids or even with a faster development cycle - only with them using resources that could be put to use on the larger part of the game . It just stands to reason given the delays and their own admissions about how raids are developed.

As far as the raids=niche content, that is based partly on the very vocal raiding proponents on these forums, but also from developer comments from people like Bobby Stein or Crystal Reid, both of whom have talked multiple times about the narrowed audience for raids in their developmental efforts (there are probably others, but those are the two I remember specifically).

Again, none of these numbers matter. Look instead at how the developers - and many raiders in this subforum - define raids - clear, unambiguous statements that are not reliant on external sources. For the most part, these players and the raid developers want them to be niche content - for them to be purposefully designed for and played by a smaller percentage of the GW2 community. The same cannot be said of Living Story and open world.

If there is an issue with Living Story and open world not being played or completed by a significant number of players, then that needs to be addressed - both on the forums and through new developmental efforts - which will, if anything, require more resources dedicated to that part of the game (some of which might have to impact raid development schedules).

Alternatively, raids are meeting the proscribed goal of catering to those that want the raiding experience as an adjunct to the rest of the game. That is why the team is smaller - and it is why the release schedule is what it is. It is not meant to be a separate game that can keep a player busy for every hour they play.

If anything, based on the numbers people are sharing above, they might need to dedicate more resources on the Living Story side - and to explore ways to improve that experience for the GW2 community.

Again, this is not an attack on raids or anyone who enjoys them. It is simply, based on what the developers have stated, and what the harder-core raiders have requested (on these forums and elsewhere), what makes the most sense for the game moving forward.

GW2 is not - and should never be - a raiding centric game. Based on developer statements and hardcore raider feedback, that content has to be looked at as a very small part of the bigger whole - adding a little something for those looking for that more intense challenge from time to time (but not meant to be a central feature or to be viewed as a replacement for the game itself).

This isn't about easy mode (a conversation that is far from dead - either here or on reddit - btw). It isn't even about what is played the most (even though that does play in to it.). And it definitely isn't about hating on raids.

The point is that raiding is supplemental in the game - and rightfully so. Many in the raiding community have said they want it to be niche (loudly and often). The developers have said they currently design it to be niche - and that they have purposely limited the team size for raids as part of that.

GW2 isn't a raiding game. If you are looking for a game that will keep you engaged in raids continually for weeks on end, this isn't - and isn't designed to be - that game.

Raiding is there for those who enjoy the rest of the game first and foremost - but also want to raid from time to time. It will never be a centerpiece of the game's design, nor will it ever be a major part of the GW2 experience. Given their commitment to keeping it niche and semi-exclusive, that just wouldn't make sense in any way. Making a change like that would basically change the game's core identity, something they surely know would be disastrous.

Again, this isn't a rant against raids, or even a plea to change raids (that discussion has its own - very active - thread). It is just a reality check for anyone expecting raids to hold the same esteem or priority that they do in some other MMOs. They never will. They are supplemental content here - meant to be enjoyed side by side (for a small percentage of the playerbase) with the rest of the game.

To the point of scheduling, I am sure that Anet is putting them out as fast as they can. Keep in mind that Living Story Chapter Three itself is running later than they wanted, per Mike Obrien last week. If they need to reallocate employees or resources to speed things up, it obviously will (and should) happen there instead of with raids.

> @"bigbobpataki.4796" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > @"JokerM.6021" said:

> > > > @"Grogba.6204" said:

> > > > > @"JokerM.6021" said:

> > > > > \No new raid is just disappointing. 7 months since last raid wing...

> > > >

> > > > It's okay, now we can use our infinte development ressources to add "eazy modes" because the content is just impossible to solo /s

> > >

> > > Raids in GW2 are easy mode, basically 10 man dungeons. If they ever brought out "easy mode" I would quit this game. The casuals already have most of the game to play, let the tryhards have at least one niche

> >

> > Yup and that is why you must wait for your content, it’s niche.

> >

> > Edit: if it wasn’t niche and Anet wanted everyone to get in there, a new raid would have more resources and probably have release cadence similar to Fractals. It has been explained that people don’t want this, so you must wait.

>

> Just curious if you can point me in the right direction where anet said that. Anet says a lot of stuff, hard for me to keep track

While Anet has specifically said they currently do not design raids for people of all skill levels (I believe those were the exact words), the heavier argument that they are niche content comes from the raiders posting on these forums. All you have to do is look at any thread where someone talks about the accessibility of raids in GW2. Once the topic is broached, the next 4-5 responses are invariably "well, raiding isn't for your" or "raiding is designed for XYZ style player" or, the worst of them all, "people just have to change how they play if they want to raid." Those are the definition of niche.

You cannot say that raids are only for a smaller percentage of the player base and then turn around and expect a cadence on par - or even close to on par - with the rest of the game. The game mode simply doesn't warrant the same schedule of changes/new content as open world or something like WvW. By necessity - given their current approach and the community desire that raids be somewhat exclusive/niche - it warrants a smaller team and less emphasis in the game itself.

I know that isn't what some want to hear (and I am shocked I haven't been jumped on already for saying so above), but GW2 isn't a raiding game. There are plenty of those out there. Raiding is supplemental, at best, to the GW2 experience. If Anet were to ever move to actually change that - to significantly increase the output of raids and integrate the experience into the greater game experience - they would have to address the playstyle and skill accessibility issue, something they have indicated they do not plan to do.

I'm glad there are reasons for people to go back - even very grindy reasons. It keeps them semi-supported by the larger game community. I've been doing them A LOT (have all of the associated achievements and most of the skins) and still enjoy them. They are probably tied with mounts as my favorite thing about POF.

It is far from dead. I'm there a lot and see people doing all of the events.

The best way to find a bounty group is to start a bounty group. Usually, you can get enough people from the map - almost always with LFG.

If they are committed to designing raids for a niche audience, then they need to be treated as niche. Their primary effort needs to remain on the parts of the game developed for larger audiences.

We received the last raid wing only two LS chapters ago. I know it isnt what some want to hear (and something I will likely be lambasted for here in the raiding subforum), but it is way too early for a new raid wing.

As good as this idea is, if they are going to put effort into guilds again, I would prefer new guild missions.

As of two weeks ago, it has been five years since the last new one was added to the game.

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > I had this in another thread, but it makes more sense to state it here -

> >

> > I know some people do not want to accept it, but the reason WoW is seen as the posterchild for how to make raiding work in an MMO is because the developers there adapted the game mode throughout the years and ended up with something that fits with the rest of the game. By including multiple difficulty tiers (including and LFG and flex raid tier), they were able to do things that a game like GW2 cannot, most notably incorporating strong story and lore focused content into raids. Since they do not have to worry about the accessibility factor, raids could become a deeply integrated part of the WoW experience.

>

> WoW is seen as the pinnacle of raiding content because a decade ago it released iconic difficult raid after iconic that people still talk about. People still talk about Ragnaros, C'thun, Kael'thas, Illidan and Arthas. No one has ever or will ever be waxing poetic about Deathwing, Ragnaros 2.0, Garrosh, or Argus theuUnmaker a decade from now.

All of the bosses you mention here are now 100-1000 times easier than anything in GW2 because of the gear and level treadmills - game features that created their own sort of difficultly levels (within months of the content being released). Essentially, the content was eventually open and easily accessible to players of all skill levels through that design.

Now, gear treadmills do not exist (or belong) in GW2, so that isn't an option. The correct path to take here is to implement actual difficulty tiers - to achieve that same level of accessibility those iconic raid bosses in WoW had.

You are looking for WvW.

GW2 is better off without PVP in open world PVE.

I've been healing on my scrapper in open world and WvW a lot since the update and find it extremely fun and effective.

Dont think 20 man raids would necessarily work, but Ive always believed that anything currently instanced would be fun to play if it were simultaneously available as open world areas (not replacing current content). This includes raids, dungeons, guild puzzles, etc. They have already proven it is possible to have instanced content on top of existing open world areas with guild challenges (Scratch Sentry Defense, Save our Supplies, etc).

In addition to dealing with any possible story or content accessibility problems, it would also open up a way to bring things like the Marionette in Lornar's Pass or the Breachmaker fight in Lion's Arch back into the game without disrupting everything that currently exists.

As always, not sure what the technical challenges for something like this might look like.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with.

>

> I'm not the one adding the 46% of those that voted for **both** with those that voted for easy (and hard) as if to justify a non-existent point.

I am fully in support of "both", which includes the addition of an easy mode. Even without the 7 percent asking for easy mode only, that 46 percent number tells the tale Anet needs to be paying attention to.

Again, I think you probably understand that yourself but are trying to convolute things because you simply do not like the results.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch.

> >

>

> And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower.

>

> Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work)

Except there are not multiple modes currently in the game (and I think you know that people choosing that option understand that).

Easy mode and hard mode indicates that every fight (or the instance as a whole) would offer multiple versions - one easy and one hard. While you can debate the definition of easy and hard, I think you know that most people interpret this as needing modes easier than what we have now - a definition that is backed up by Lonami's lead in to the questions in the original post (and by the posts in the thread from those who chose that option).

I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with.