Blaeys.3102

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > I don't think the phrase "both easy and hard modes" is that hard to interpret. It indicates people wanting multiple modes - one easy and one hard. You then add this to those solely requesting easy mode and you see that 51 percent of those polled want some kind of easy mode, though they may differ in opinion as to what that might be.

> >

>

> But that's not what that option say. It's rather clear that they want both an easy and a hard mode.

>

> > No matter how you try to spin this, you still have a larger number of people here who have expressed interest in an easier mode in one form or another, with the majority of respondents in favor of multiple modes of raiding (incorporating both). There really is no other logical way to interpret the results of this poll.

> >

>

> Let's use your logic here, 46% want a hard mode (together with an easy mode) and 7% want only a hard mode so 53% of players want a hard mode, together with those that voted that Raids are fine (31%) that means 84% of those polled either want to stay as it is or tilt toward being harder.

I think you're grasping to come up with some kind of justification that isn't there - or simply just trying to convolute things because data doesn't support your desired outcome.

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.

> @"nia.4725" said:

>> You're ignoring those who also want hard mode in that easy and hard mode option, a 46%.

>

> You can't say that easy mode is hard+easy mode option and just easy mode option and then say that hard more is just hard mode option. Hard mode would be then hard mode option and hard+easy mode option.

Not ignoring it at all. I think it is clear that the vast majority want a combination of the two - multiple modes that include a hard and an easy option. I think that is very clear in the responses.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Lonami.2987" said:

> > 53% want easy mode, and only 31% think raids are fine as they are.

>

> I'm confused because I read that 7% want an easy mode not 53%

> Since when does "We need **both** easy and hard modes" counts as they want an easy mode? For all you know everyone that voted that wants both at once and not only one (it's in the wording) and if it was impossible to get both, they'd choose something different than "we want an easy mode".

I don't think the phrase "both easy and hard modes" is that hard to interpret. It indicates people wanting multiple modes - one easy and one hard. You then add this to those solely requesting easy mode and you see that 51 percent of those polled want some kind of easy mode, though they may differ in opinion as to what that might be.

Alternatively, we see 31 percent who are fine with the way they are (single mode - usually interpreted as medium to hard difficulty, based on the fight) and another 7 who want hard mode only (so, something akin to what we have now, but no escort or Cairn style fights). That comes to 38 percent of those polled who favor that the raid design philosophy either stay as it is or tilt toward being harder.

Finally, you have another 7 percent who just feel they need to be changed but not necessarily with easier modes incorporated.

No matter how you try to spin this, you still have a larger number of people here who have expressed interest in an easier mode in one form or another, with the majority of respondents in favor of multiple modes of raiding (incorporating both). There really is no other logical way to interpret the results of this poll.

That said, the biggest take-way from this is that they community is split in very meaningful ways on how raids are currently implemented in the game, to the point where less than 1/3 of those responding indicated they were happy with how they currently exist. They need to be looked at - and everyone's input should be considered.

> @"nia.4725" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > It is good to see the poll numbers supporting points that many of us have been making for years (seems weird, but yes, years) now.

> >

> > I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

>

> Pro-easy mode

>

> We need both easy and hard modes: 294 votes

> We need an easy mode, but not a hard mode: 41 votes

>

> Non-pro easy mode

>

> We need a hard mode, but not an easy mode: 48 votes

> Raids are fine the way they are, combining bosses of various difficulties: 198 votes

>

> Neither:

>

> Raids have problems, but we need a better solution: 50 votes

>

> Total pro-easy mode: 335

> Total non pro-easy mode: 246

>

> Do you really think that 89 votes really show that the majority of players want an easy mode? The difference in votes is little, this doesn't support your point. Also everyone can access the raiding forum, not just raiders. Yeah sure raiders read it more often but I'm sure non raiders take a look at it sometimes, so it's very possible that some people opened it and just voted even if they don't raid. Moreover you have to remember that the GW2 forums does not mean the GW2 players.

Again it is a small sample size, but among that sample size, we are looking at a nine percent difference (approximately 60% of responders in favor of this kind of change).

While that isn't huge, it is statistically significant - and, more importantly, completely invalidates the argument that the community is "just fine" with the way raids are now (even more so when you add in the neither, who obviously want something different). Considering this poll was conducted on the raiding subforum, where you will see little to no input from those who have already written raiding off as a lost cause, I think you can definitely draw some conclusions from this data.

At best, you can say the community is significantly split on this issue - which, by itself, warrants ArenaNet's attention and possible action. If the poll here is even 50% inaccurate (meaning a hypothetical 30 percent of the total population want this change), then Anet has to recognize that raids need to be changed in some way. The margins we are looking at here should be way passed acceptable.

It is good to see the poll numbers supporting points that many of us have been making for years (seems weird, but yes, years) now.

I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

It has been more than a year since we have heard anything about E (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/E).

Anet has a habit of letting things just slip away with no real resolution (shooting gallery in DR, guild missions, Vikki and Momo, etc).

Is E one of those things?

Before HOT, I used to require members rep our guild in order to gain access to the bank or to attain a certain rank. The reason was simply that the game system required guild influence (that was only earned by repping members) in order to build guild upgrades.

When they did away with influence at the HOT launch (one of the best things they ever did for guilds, btw) and made guild chat visible even when you weren't repping, it became a non issue.

In the current state of the game, if you have to find ways to force your members to represent your guild all - or most of the time - then you obviously aren't providing any real value to your members. Members represent my guild now because they want to - because we do things together and look for new ways to enjoy the game as a guild.

Ive made this suggestion before, but the answer lies with guilds.

If Anet were to change the guild missions system to mirror the individual dailies (only probably make them weeklies) - focused on rewarding guilds for doing meta events and other activities (eg, new bounties) across various maps, then we would see more activity for everyone in the game (not just those in guilds).

So, for example, if weekly PVE guild missions included something like the following:

- Complete The Serpent's Ire meta event in Domain of Vabbi with at least 3 guild members present.

Then we would see Serpent's Ire as a semi-organized effort more often. That would, in turn, give those people not in those guilds more to do on those maps. And, if they tied that event into the existing guild event flag system (which currently only works for Tequatl, TT and Karka Queen), then it would be even better.

The same would be true of the following:

- Complete 5 bounties in the POF Maps with at least 3 guild members present

- Complete the raptor race in Crystal Oasis with at least 3 guild members

- Complete 15 dynamic events with at least 3 guild members present

The rewards for this could be exactly what they are for missions now - only this wouldn't squirrel guilds away in instances when they could be helping keep the world alive.

This same system could work for the vanilla maps and HOT maps as well, btw (possibly guild mission tabs for each area).

I truly believe a system like this would not only revitalize guild missions - it would serve to make every map in the game more interesting and alive.

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

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

> > > > > @"Sakiko.5432" said:

> > > > > Well, the best way to fight that is creating your own LFG and adding something like "chill" or "all welcome". Peeps like that usually don't come in that kind of LF

> > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > > > ArcDPS is a greenlit DPS meter, you cannot report people for using it. You automatically agree to it's usage when joining a group or squad.

> > > >

> > > > But you can report someone when they use it to be toxic or hateful to another player.

> > > People can be toxic as much as they want in their own group. Dont like it? leave group

> >

> > Joining a group doesn't suspend the game's terms of service (which state very clearly "you may not defraud, harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players") nor provide an excuse for being a jerk in a party. People can and should report people choosing to use these meters as a way to shame or harrass other players.

> >

> > If someone cannot behave like a rational person within the confines of the very clear TOS, then they're probably playing the wrong kind of game.

> Try to report them. Nothing will happen. Those legal documents are always stricter than reality so they have all options when they feel like it.

>

> 90%+ of the games population would be permanently banned by now if Anet would take everything in the legal documents literally and apply it with a zero tolerance policy.

It's not about zero tolerance. It is about ongoing behavior. When people step over the civility line, it is worth reporting just so Anet can keep track of those individuals that continually make the game a more toxic place. If it happens enough with the same people, I feel confident action would be taken. Anet is historically pretty good at quashing long term toxic behavior.

Keep in mind I am not debating whether or not meters should be allowed - just discussing the players options when someone choses to use them to justify behavior that is literally against the game's terms of service.

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> >That said, this thread should probably be merged with this one -

>

> >https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18677/do-raids-need-easy-normal-hard-difficulty-mode-merged/p1

>

> >for the sake of keeping the conversation in one place.

>

> personally I think that if this thread focuses more on improvements for the lfg, it could separate itself from that one. And I believe there is merit to improving the quality of the lfg.

Improving the LFG system is definitely a topic worth discussing. Unfortunately it is one that will likely get lost in this particular thread given the tie in with multiple raid modes. I would vote for merging and then, possibly, starting another thread dedicated to that singular topic away from the easy mode/hard mode discussion.

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"Sakiko.5432" said:

> > > Well, the best way to fight that is creating your own LFG and adding something like "chill" or "all welcome". Peeps like that usually don't come in that kind of LF

> > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > ArcDPS is a greenlit DPS meter, you cannot report people for using it. You automatically agree to it's usage when joining a group or squad.

> >

> > But you can report someone when they use it to be toxic or hateful to another player.

> People can be toxic as much as they want in their own group. Dont like it? leave group

Joining a group doesn't suspend the game's terms of service (which state very clearly "you may not defraud, harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players") nor provide an excuse for being a jerk in a party. People can and should report people choosing to use these meters as a way to shame or harrass other players.

If someone cannot behave like a rational person within the confines of the very clear TOS, then they're probably playing the wrong kind of game.

> @"Sakiko.5432" said:

> Well, the best way to fight that is creating your own LFG and adding something like "chill" or "all welcome". Peeps like that usually don't come in that kind of LF

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> ArcDPS is a greenlit DPS meter, you cannot report people for using it. You automatically agree to it's usage when joining a group or squad.

But you can report someone when they use it to be toxic or hateful to another player.

> @"Cerioth.7062" said:

> Same people arguing about the same thing for 1000th time...

>

> *yawn*

>

> Raids are fine as they are. I can grab a couple guildies whenever, LFG the rest and get kills.

The reason the topic is still active (possibly the most active conversation on the forums for some time now) is that many people do not feel they are fine as they are.

As I've said before, this topic will continue to naturally reoccur on the forums because it is something a sizeable number of players want - and because it is something that just makes sense given the content model and combat systems present in the rest of the game. And it definitely is more than the same people over and over again - we've seen at least half a dozen threads about this topic started by someone new - mostly because they were new to the conversation and didn't realize it has been ongoing for 2-2.5 years now (and, yes, it has been an active topic on the GW2 forums for at least that long).

That said, this thread should probably be merged with this one -

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18677/do-raids-need-easy-normal-hard-difficulty-mode-merged/p1

for the sake of keeping the conversation in one place.

We do not need Anet adding the resources and developer time needed to manage meters (or addons of any kind, for that matter) when they cannot even dedicate partial developer resources to things like guilds, guild activities, dungeons, legendary quests and other things that would actually add something meaningful to the game.

Meters are not needed to enjoy any part of the game and would add very little that isn't available at the special forces training area accessible through the raid lobby.

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

>

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > > @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> > > I can not keep up with the rate you guys are posting. Do you mind if I steer the conversation back as to how an easy mode vg should look feel and play like?

> >

> > This would definitely be a more productive use of this thread - the "should they or shouldn't they" argument has been covered extensively (and we can clearly see how that currently stacks up among people visiting the raid subforum in the actual poll #s at the top of this thread).

> agreed.

>

> > Imo, Vale Guardian would be an easy one to do - simply cut the boss's health by 1/2 and conclude the fight at the end of the first kite phase (and remove the enrage). This would give guilds looking to train/practice the ability to see pretty much every mechanic in the fight while giving those wanting an easier mode a way to bring tougher (and, thus, lower dps) toons to experience the fight and move on to the next encounter.

> >

> > This kind of approach probably wouldn't work for every raid boss, but I think it would for VG.

>

> Removing the phases past the 1st split phase might be too much imo, the saying goes the real boss fight of vg only starts after the split. Though, an interesting thought occurs to me: what if there were checkpoints added to the boss fight. Now hear me out, ignoring how much work would be needed to do this, what if the hp of the boss would be reduced to be only 33%? Killing it would then lead to the split phase. Upon successfully passing the split phase there would be a checkpoint, and a 2nd vg would then spawn , also with 33% of it's current hp?

>

> This suggestion is made as a hypothetical where we have infinite resources, and time. What I would generally like to see in an easy mode is a way that preserves the integrity of the raid, not making it a 1 spam fest, while simultaneously making it easier to do, especially with the other suggestions mentioned here. For this reason I lean towards suggesting making mechanics easier, but not to the point that they can be ignored (any more than they already can). This method would justify an easier alternative path to leg armor imo, as it is still more difficult than open world bosses, requiring coordination with other people. As for rewards, especially magnetite shards, I would like to talk about it in a later date once everything is finalized, but I do like ohoni's suggestion of 1/4th of an li per reward, which you can then click once you have 4 of to make 1 li.

>

> Thoughts?

I think this is definitely the kind of thinking they could employ to develop the lesser difficulty modes that many of us believe raids need. As you note, it would come down - as all things must - to effort expended balanced against developmental resources.

But again, I think your thinking would likely be a good jumping off point for the developers in the corner with the calculators :).

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

> I can not keep up with the rate you guys are posting. Do you mind if I steer the conversation back as to how an easy mode vg should look feel and play like?

This would definitely be a more productive use of this thread - the "should they or shouldn't they" argument has been covered extensively (and we can clearly see how that currently stacks up among people visiting the raid subforum in the actual poll #s at the top of this thread).

Imo, Vale Guardian would be an easy one to do - simply cut the boss's health by 1/2 and conclude the fight at the end of the first kite phase (and remove the enrage). This would give guilds looking to train/practice the ability to see pretty much every mechanic in the fight while giving those wanting an easier mode a way to bring tougher (and, thus, lower dps) toons to experience the fight and move on to the next encounter.

This kind of approach probably wouldn't work for every raid boss, but I think it would for VG.

This is why no third party software should have ever been greenlit by ArenaNet in the first place (and was probably why they chose not to do so for 4+ years). By making "were okay with it, but use at your own risk" statements about things like Arc, they opened the door to a lot of experimentation from players without the developer support or oversight to make sure these tools aren't abused in some way.

Simply put, they do not have the manpower to police what and how it is used, so their only two options are a blanket "this is okay" with zero followup or a stern punishment for first time offenders. Anything in between the two extremes pretty much has to fall into the "punishment" side or they risk add ons hurting the game's performance or fairness.

Yes, players should be banned if they deliberately use third party software to gain an in game advantage - but Anet opened this door themselves when they started tacitly endorsing dps meters and other tools - and, as a result, are, imo, as responsible for much of the fallout as the actual offenders.

This is just editorial, btw - I don't use these tools and I was not banned.

As much as I hate exclusive items limited to a single game mode - given the time and effort that went into making the first set, I do not think they should ever do another. There are so many other things that would be a better use of developer resources.

And I care nothing for the design of the first set - like most, I just find them visually unappealing.

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> This subject arises regularly, and it's best to keep such a conversation in a single thread, to get a true cross-section of opinion. Therefore, we've merged this thread and ask for your indulgence in doing so.

>

> Those of you who have not voted may do so on the first page. Otherwise, the comments here, while merged, will give a pretty solid representation of the differing opinions on this topic.

The topic arises so often because newer players or even long standing players curious about raids see this as a no-brainer - a common sense step that would only make the game better, even for the harder-core raiders.

Honestly, it might be worth sticky-ing this thread. The topic isn't going away and, even if there is a period of quiet on the subject, it will eventually resurface for the reason I mention above.

It is good to see this topic resurface periodically on its own, as many of us predicted it would.

I still contend that the way raids are currently implemented does not fit with the rest of the game, potentially fragments the story experience, encourages toxicity among players and is unsustainable long term. Outside of a tiered difficulty system, I believe the only way they can maintain consistent long-term interest will be to use a lopsided reward system that creates a severe have/have not situation between raiders and non raiders - something many players would find disheartening. That is a dangerous road to go down and would fly in the face of the reasons many picked this game over other MMOs.

I still hold out hope that Anet management steps in and realizes this sooner rather than later - but I do think that easy modes/tiered difficulties will have to happen. It is just a matter of time.

As someone who often gets very "passionate" about topics (probably a little too much so for a video game forum :) ) - and who has received at least one warning/post deletions on the forums - I believe that Anet, and Gaile in particular, are very fair in where they draw the line regarding infractions.

I imagine overseeing this kind of thing can easily become a full time job, but the result is a friendly (ish) environment where we can have actual discussions - even animated discussions among large groups of players who disagree strongly with one another. It would likely be much easier if they were a lot stricter, but by striking that balance, it makes this a better feedback tool - both for players and, probably for the devs as well.

That is something I believe sets Anet and GW2 apart regarding this particular game community aspect.

My guess is the ability to sit in the guild hall was something that slipped past them. It is probably something they are still testing and weren't ready to release into the wild yet.

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Thanks to player reports and our own observations, we've identified a few bugs we're going to be correcting later this month. The list below is not comprehensive, but we wanted to give you a heads up about a few known issues:

>

> - Mount Maelstrom Mastery Point currently is inaccessible.

> - This was not intended, of course, and we'll make this Mastery Point accessible again.

> - Marmoxes in the wrangling event in Sandswept Isles can be killed using mount engage skills.

> - Again, not intended. Soon, marmoxes will be wrangled in more marmox-friendly ways.

> - A couple of gates in the Sandswept Isles races may not always turn green when properly crossed.

> - We'll get that fixed so you know you've successfully hit the gates.

> - The Position Rewinder currently is able to mark aerial locations.

> - This is not a good thing, and we'll correct it to eliminate possible exploitation.

> - Some players report that they have not being able to earn the Three Golem Monte achievement.

> - We'll ensure that everyone who earns the achievement gets credit.

> - Awakened ambushes currently occur too frequently

> - Because too-frequent spawns can impact your ability to complete other objectives, we'll adjust the rate of these ambushes.

> - Certain Awakened mummies spawn too often in the Damos Isle lab.

> - This can be exploited for unintended rewards, so we'll ensure that mobs are spawning at anticipated rates.

Didn't see anything about bounty ambushes in the patch notes. Did the change happen today?

Only sittable chairs I could find so far are the ones you place in the guild hall. Been running around to a bunch of places looking

I agree that guild missions, in their original form, probably wouldn't make sense in the current game.

What I do think would make sense would be some kind of minimal structure to drive and maybe even reward guild activity across the game.

As a rudimentary example - we have daily achievements for individuals and small groups (fractal dailies). What if they changed the guild missions system to resemble a weekly guild achievement category, with the rewards mirroring those in missions now (commendations, favor, etc). It could include things like:

* Complete six bounties in POF maps with at least three guild members present

* Defeat Mordremoth. At least three guild members must be present

* Complete Serpent's Ire. At least three guild members must be present

* Complete 10 dynamic events in Queensdale in 30 minutes. At least three guild members must be present.

Then give guilds a way to trigger the larger events through their guild halls (similar to how the guild trigger flag for TT, Tequatl, Karka Queen works now).

The same would work in WvW (similar to the system now, only in an achievement rather than mission interface).

The idea is to not only refresh guild missions/content, but to also direct guild activity in ways that support larger community activities. The guild doing Serpent's Ire means more individual players have a greater chance of success in that event in a given week.

The point of my original post is that none of this will ever happen because no one is paying attention to potential guild focused improvements (even ones as simple as the above). We need a team with some guild-focused responsibilities - and, while I believe it should be a dedicated team, I could see it rolled in with something else. Anything other than the abandonment model currently in use.

Yes, this is another discussion about the lack of support for guilds. And, I realize there are a lot of people who enjoy the game without the support of a good guild. I still think this issue needs to be addressed and discussed further.

There are three reasons why Anet needs to do more to support guilds again:

The first is simply that **many legacy systems in the game rely on the guild structure to keep them alive.** This can be something as concrete as the guild hall/guild missions to the backbone of most WvW zergs, bounty trains (champ trains at one time) and much more.

The second is that **many players rely on the social and structural elements** of their guilds to enjoy the game. This is most evident in WvW, but it is just as important in PVE. I know in my guild, my first action when I log in is to open the guild roster to see who is on and what they are doing.

The third, and what I believe to be most important, is that **a large part of the GW2 open world experience would likely not exist without some rudimentary guild support** . The only reason encounters like Tequatl, Triple Trouble, Mordremoth and, most recently, Serpents Ire, are done daily is because structured guilds put in the effort to establish rough strategies and even LFG schedules. At a lower level, maps are kept more alive by the presence of guild groups – doing bounties, group event chains and more. This provides the baseline that every player – guilded or not – can use to successfully do those events. Yes, they would probably still happen without guilds, but it would be WAY less often than it happens now.

With these elements in mind, it seems like Anet would be pouring as many resources as possible into supporting and developing content for guilds – to foster those underlying communities that keep the game as active as it is. Instead, they chose to completely dismantle their guild activity team. The result is a five year gap (yes, five years) since the last new guild mission, a new guild hall that is inferior in pretty much every single way, broken events (Prisoner 1141 has been broken for 1.5 years and every guild race has been bugged for more than 12 months now), lackluster guild hall decorations (when they actually bother to do them at all) and a general sense that Anet just doesn’t really care about these in game communities the way they did when the game came out.

Again, I apologize for the lengthy and ongoing rant – and I realize this isn’t something everyone feels is a huge issue. Guilds have been the glue that keeps GW2 together for me – and for many others I know. Anet needs to reverse their decision from last year and begin actively supporting these communities again. It makes no sense that they haven’t.