Ayrilana.1396

Enough players based on what? How many players in this games are into PvP? Of those, how many do you think would do this activity throughout the year?

All of this doesn't matter because it's such a niche activity, as well as intended to be a part of the festival, that it's very unlikely that it'll be made permanent. It falls under the same scenario as those who want SAB permanent.

> @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > > > > > It would lose all the fun if it was permanent content.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'd still have fun with it regardless, to be honest. WvW and arena PvP are permanent content and people still enjoy them. I'm the same way with snowball mayhem. I actually have more fun in snowball mayhem than I do in WvW.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It would end up like all of the activities.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's better to have the option to play it than not. If you don't want to play it, you don't have to.

> > > >

> > > > And the majority of the player base probably wouldn't play it either to the point that you wouldn't have a two full teams and may even run into situations where you're the only one there. Seasonal content should remain as such.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not if they provide an incentive to play it. They could give it a reward track just like they do for WvW and arena pvp. I'd play it year-round, and I know there are others like me that would as well.

> >

> > So now they have to make it permanent **AND** add an incentive for players to play it?

>

> What do you think they do to encourage players to play the rest of the game??? Why do so many people do the wintersday jumping puzzle over and over? They incentivized people to play it with a 12-present-per-run reward. If they did something as simple as provided more presents for playing Snowball Mayhem during wintersday, even more people would play it. It's not rocket science. I'd play snowball mayhem year-round without -any- incentive, but there's nothing wrong with having a reward track for it similar to WvW or arena PvP. At the end of the day it's about providing options for players who enjoy different parts of the game. Providing options allows mmo companies to maintain their playerbase. If players aren't having as much fun with the rest of the game as they do with wintersday, then it's probably something they should look at.

And the JP is an **annual** activity. How many players do you think would play snowball mayhem continually outside of Wintersday?

> @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > > > It would lose all the fun if it was permanent content.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd still have fun with it regardless, to be honest. WvW and arena PvP are permanent content and people still enjoy them. I'm the same way with snowball mayhem. I actually have more fun in snowball mayhem than I do in WvW.

> > > >

> > > > It would end up like all of the activities.

> > >

> > > It's better to have the option to play it than not. If you don't want to play it, you don't have to.

> >

> > And the majority of the player base probably wouldn't play it either to the point that you wouldn't have a two full teams and may even run into situations where you're the only one there. Seasonal content should remain as such.

> >

>

> Not if they provide an incentive to play it. They could give it a reward track just like they do for WvW and arena pvp. I'd play it year-round, and I know there are others like me that would as well.

So now they have to make it permanent **AND** add an incentive for players to play it?

> @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > It would lose all the fun if it was permanent content.

> > >

> > > I'd still have fun with it regardless, to be honest. WvW and arena PvP are permanent content and people still enjoy them. I'm the same way with snowball mayhem. I actually have more fun in snowball mayhem than I do in WvW.

> >

> > It would end up like all of the activities.

>

> It's better to have the option to play it than not. If you don't want to play it, you don't have to.

And the majority of the player base probably wouldn't play it either to the point that you wouldn't have a two full teams and may even run into situations where you're the only one there. Seasonal content should remain as such.

> @"PulsarianDevil.8125" said:

> > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > It would lose all the fun if it was permanent content.

>

> I'd still have fun with it regardless, to be honest. WvW and arena PvP are permanent content and people still enjoy them. I'm the same way with snowball mayhem. I actually have more fun in snowball mayhem than I do in WvW.

It would end up like all of the activities.

> Unlocked after completing any encounter of either Forsaken Thicket and Bastion of the Penitent raids. (This includes killing bosses or completing events, but Spirit Woods and Twisted Castle will not unlock the track.)

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Heart_of_Thorns_mastery_tracks#Raids

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > I've never got the whole PoF maps are too difficult complaint in this thread and the other active one on the general forum page. I was about to run low level alts doing all but the hearts and hero points which required fighting without any issues. I've not seen any issues with the aggro range of mobs either. It's clearly a learn to play issue with some players wanting the map to be like Queensdale. Fighting mobs is a part of the game. Expecting to traverse across the maps as a pacifist is absurd.

> > >

> > > i do play very well thanks, thats why i take grypphon and fly over trying skipp map much as possible. bad map design with 1500+ aggro range and mobs overlapping every other all time inst a player issue, but bad design.

> >

> > Interesting, seeing how many players don't have this problem. I'd still say in many -maybe most- cases it's just positioning issue of the player. Sure, there are areas designed to be especially tight/crowded with mobs, but if someone claims it's the issue universally true for whole pof maps then based on my experience that's just false, which to me points at it not being "bad design", but rather a "playstyle/player issue".

> >

> > Also "taking griffon to skip everything" (while fun and definitely a viable/solid solution, don't get me wrong ;p) doesn't do anything to support the claim about someone being a good player with sufficient/high combat mechanics understanding, just saying.

>

> being a good player is being able to use the tools to avoid annoyances.

>

> the map are designed to use mounts, the problem is that once u are unlocky guy that are dismounted, u have to clear entire zone to get out of combat and mount again.

>

> they should rethink this...

Except that you don't.

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > I've never got the whole PoF maps are too difficult complaint in this thread and the other active one on the general forum page. I was about to run low level alts doing all but the hearts and hero points which required fighting without any issues. I've not seen any issues with the aggro range of mobs either. It's clearly a learn to play issue with some players wanting the map to be like Queensdale. Fighting mobs is a part of the game. Expecting to traverse across the maps as a pacifist is absurd.

>

> i do play very well thanks, thats why i take grypphon and fly over trying skipp map much as possible. bad map design with 1500+ aggro range and mobs overlapping every other all time inst a player issue, but bad design.

I have never seen enemies with that long of a range nor excessive groups of enemies throughout the entire map. It’s being exaggerated.

Legendary armor tied to **normal** raid mode would be the incentive for those who are playing on **easy** to get better.

There are already several raid encounter which a group of new raiders can more easily complete on a weekly basis and gradually earn LI for a legendary armor.

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> There is an obvious problem when it comes to these instances. Anyone can hide in the map or afk, waiting for others to finish it and get free rewards. This has been a problem since Drizzlewood Coast.

>

> There needs to be an update of some kind for these chests. Any chest should not let players who didn't participate loot it. It worked fine with World Boss chests.

Players who don't meet the minimum participation threshold established by Anet already do not get credit in DRMs for the chest nor for the achievements. While you may not like the level of participation that they provided, according to Anet it was adequate otherwise they would have gotten nothing. If one were to use the amount of effort as some sort of guideline then all of those players who come to events and just spam their auto attacks in terrible gear while not helping out with related activities to an event (e.g. shadow portals during SB fight) should not get credit either. Someone being AFK the entire time would not get any loot or credit whatsoever.

For Drizzlewood, if they earned the participation then they deserve to get all of the rewards for it while AFK as it decreases. Now players who are truly AFK while earning/maintaining participation is another issue. Those players with their necro minions, or with their #1 key taped down, should be dealt with if they truly are AFK.

I've never got the whole PoF maps are too difficult complaint in this thread and the other active one on the general forum page. I was about to run low level alts doing all but the hearts and hero points which required fighting without any issues. I've not seen any issues with the aggro range of mobs either. It's clearly a learn to play issue with some players wanting the map to be like Queensdale. Fighting mobs is a part of the game. Expecting to traverse across the maps as a pacifist is absurd.

What are you trying to sell? The game has changed a lot since 3-4 years ago.

The public DRMs have no issues or at least the metrica one doesn't. I think a number of people game up on doing CMs every day because the chance to get the weapon skin drop is so low.

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > > > nothing here....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > had to go buy it for 0 gems

> > > > >

> > > > > again, nothing....

> > > >

> > > > It was a one day only sale on Christmas. If you didn't log into the game on Christmas Day, you missed out.

> > > >

> > > > Or is that nothing here relating to something else? If so, maybe be a bit more descriptive in what you're trying to convey.

> > >

> > > the 26th is second christmas day, a horrible time to do such things.

> >

> > And the sale was on Christmas Day, which is the 25th. Not on the non-existent second Christmas Day.

> >

> > And it's not a horrible thing to give out a freebie on Christmas.

> >

> > The world does not revolve around those who travel for Christmas and aren't by their computer to log in for the short time it would take to log in and get the freebie.

>

> no, the world revolves around ppl without a life who are addicted instead of being with their family.

Logging into the game for a few minutes doesn't constitute as not having a life nor being so addicted that they cannot spend time being with family.

Balance is about trade offs. The trade-off to using melee weapons with more damage is that you're at a greater risk. The trade-off for ranged weapons is lower damage because you're at a much lower risk.

The tradeoff for lower damage with ranged weapons is that you're generally safer at ranged compared to melee.

One of many open plot lines. Since the story has moved away from the Sylvari, it's probably something that won't be resolved.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > Changes to the game engine have the potential to break existing things in the game which would then need to be reworked. Things may also need to be reworked in order to take advantage of the new changes. Content in development may be put on hold, or release dates pushed back, in order to ensure that they'll function using the new game engine.

>

> That depends on which part of the engine we are talking about. When games switch from direct 9 to direct x 10 or 11 for example, there is minimal changes to the rest if the game's code. When you change something like for example physics, it can break things, like when they reworked that part of the engine, it broke Super Adventure Box for a while.

Updating/re-working the game engine doesn't mean just upgrading to a higher version of DX. Besides, it's already been stated by Anet that DX wouldn't buy a whole lot of performance improvements.

Changes to the game engine have the potential to break existing things in the game which would then need to be reworked. Things may also need to be reworked in order to take advantage of the new changes. Content in development may be put on hold, or release dates pushed back, in order to ensure that they'll function using the new game engine.

The most efficient way to farm them is by doing the bonus events that pop up in every lane when you complete its meta chain. You're correct that opening caches is very inefficient.

Which was what I said in the first part of the post. However, there is data on Anet's end (which we'll likely never know) but the point of the question was to think about what the answer could be. That number would likely be the number of players who would do raids if there was an easy mode as you'd expect it to be on a similar skill level. If the number is small then it likely wouldn't be worth it.

We'll likely never know the answer to this but how many players regularly do strike missions who do not do raids?

Just going to say that because you don’t experience lag with other online games, this doesn’t necessarily rule out the ISP. The internet doesn’t work that way.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.

> > > That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design _did_ fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

> >

> > Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids.

> I don't follow. Whether those design decisions have impact on each other doesn't matter. What matters is if Anet is always making correct decisions, or not. If they always make correct decisions, which never need to be changed, then nothing in the game can go wrong. But if they do happen to make wrong decisions, and their design goals _are_ subject to change, then them once saying they inteded something is not a hard argument against change. And we do know that both bad decisions and design goal changes are things that do happen to them.

>

If you believe whether the design choices outside of raids doesn't matter then why did you use them against me in a previous post? I answered the unbiased version of your question that I felt raid design was good and that the issue rose elsewhere by changes that Anet has made over the course of the game. You then replied that "That is also part of the design." If you believed that they didn't matter then why say "That is also part of the design"?

I'm also noticing you now shifting things over to "correct choices".

> > > Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the _fact_ that they did happen is _not_ an opinion.

> >

> > I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant.

> >

> > Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.

> It does not. But it does mean that Anet _is_ making bad decisions, and that sometimes design decision changes _should_ happen. And you can't just assume that some parts you like are extempt from that. Or rather, you can, but that is also nothing more than just a subjective opinion.

>

You're deflecting. You stated that raids got abandoned and it was because of the design choices that they made. I then list a handful of other content that got abandoned or have seen very minimal support. You're now going off on "bad decisions" and how design changes "should" happen. You're choosing not to address what I said and to instead divert the discussion elsewhere.

> > I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the **WHY**. Please don't shift the goal post on this.

> I'm not. _You_ are. I was merely responding to your claim that something is not possible because it would go against their initial stated design goals. My whole point was that it is a very weak argument, because original design goals by itself do not matter. What matters is how they are relevant to the new situation, and _this_ you never actually refered to. You just were bringing up their original statement as if it was something sacred, not to be questioned and never to be changed, just because. You never bothered to try to justify _why_ this design decision

>

No. You originally stated your opinion about the issue being with raids themselves and that being "truth" also know as a fact. When I questioned you calling it the "truth" you then shifted over to raids being abandoned.

If you believe the issue to be raids, since you're making the initial claim, please provide actual evidence.

> > > No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

> >

> > You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about **DESIGN DECISIONS** (the **WHY**) and not about them being abandoned.

> Again, the one trying to change goalposts here is you. My whole point when arguing with you was contesting your appeal to authority argument. Nothing more.

>

No. Your shifting back and forth between raids being abandoned and the design choices. Where I responded to by saying "that's your opinion, you were speaking of design decisions. You then countered that by shifting to talking about raids being abandoned. They are not the same thing. You also have not provided any evidence to support that there is actually a correlation between the two.

If we are to continue, you will have to first back up that raids being abandoned (or at least put on hold) has to do with the design choices for raids.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.

> That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design _did_ fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

>

Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids.

> > Truth? So your **OPINION** is now truth? If you feel that it's proof then by all means give facts otherwise please don't state your opinion as such.

> Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the _fact_ that they did happen is _not_ an opinion.

>

I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant.

Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.

I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the **WHY**. Please don't shift the goal post on this.

> > > Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least _some_ of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design".

> >

> > That's your opinion.

> No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about **DESIGN DECISIONS** (the **WHY**) and not about them being abandoned.