Asgaeroth.6427 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. I really tried with the first raid, we bashed our heads into it and just bounced off. Almost daily three hours of wipes getting nowhere, no one having any fun, no one getting anything out of it but pure misery. Could not get anywhere with it, only maybe 1% of any of my 5 guilds were precision/twitch skilled meta build players, and even if you got all them together it was still just endless misery of dying over and over and over and over to cheap one shots and way too short enrages. So quite rapidly all my friends, all my family, and all my guilds just evaporated from the game. This also correlated with a heavy drop off in game population as a whole. WvW died, PvP queues died, map meta groups disappeared, the entire game died. The current raid design is what hurt Anet as a company above all. It was the worst decision they ever made and we're still here all these years later begging them to fix it. It doesn't matter if you think the raids are hard or easy, it means absolutely nothing to anyone but you. The raids should be accessible to the majority of players in some way in a game like this, especially with our limited content development. If they had launched raids with the same mentality that they launched fractals, GW2 may well have never suffered the mass die off of population. I just can't understand why it is still so broken today. No one can use the raids at all, I don't know a single person who has cleared a raid in years, and I associate with a huge amount of people in this game. They just serve no purpose in this state. In August my main WvW guild tried the first raid and it was so horrible and miserable that they argued about it for weeks. You can't get away from how disgusting they are. And the worst part about it all is, there is so much there for us. It's so close but totally unreachable. I would give anything to have access to these instances as fun farmable pug-able areas with enticing rewards. They could be populated 24/7 drawing people into the game with 1 day of work. That would also familiarize people with them and push more people upward through the ranks into the crushing miserable 1 shot and enrage timer sweaty meta garbage that the 42 people still playing raids love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > If they had launched raids with the same mentality that they launched fractals, GW2 may well have never suffered the mass die off of population. I had the opposite experience as activity and popularity of the game soared with the launch of Heart of Thorns, and raids played an important role in that, giving the game content that you can play/enjoy playing together with other players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. I really tried with the first raid, we bashed our heads into it and just bounced off. Almost daily three hours of wipes getting nowhere, no one having any fun, no one getting anything out of it but pure misery. Could not get anywhere with it, only maybe 1% of any of my 5 guilds were precision/twitch skilled meta build players, and even if you got all them together it was still just endless misery of dying over and over and over and over to cheap one shots and way too short enrages. So quite rapidly all my friends, all my family, and all my guilds just evaporated from the game. This also correlated with a heavy drop off in game population as a whole. WvW died, PvP queues died, map meta groups disappeared, the entire game died. The current raid design is what hurt Anet as a company above all. It was the worst decision they ever made and we're still here all these years later begging them to fix it. > > It doesn't matter if you think the raids are hard or easy, it means absolutely nothing to anyone but you. The raids should be accessible to the majority of players in some way in a game like this, especially with our limited content development. If they had launched raids with the same mentality that they launched fractals, GW2 may well have never suffered the mass die off of population. I just can't understand why it is still so broken today. No one can use the raids at all, I don't know a single person who has cleared a raid in years, and I associate with a huge amount of people in this game. They just serve no purpose in this state. In August my main WvW guild tried the first raid and it was so horrible and miserable that they argued about it for weeks. You can't get away from how disgusting they are. And the worst part about it all is, there is so much there for us. It's so close but totally unreachable. I would give anything to have access to these instances as fun farmable pug-able areas with enticing rewards. They could be populated 24/7 drawing people into the game with 1 day of work. That would also familiarize people with them and push more people upward through the ranks into the crushing miserable 1 shot and enrage timer sweaty meta garbage that the 42 people still playing raids love. Fractals is still a minority they shouldnt had made mechanics to begin with more ppl would do raids if it was a 10ppl world boss like jungle wurm instead of forcing difficulty on a game made to be easy even dungeons had limited players as you need to prove ap and not play ranger or necro before hot. But issue is majority just dont want the advance mechs. But i wouldnt want them to be nerfed as unlike other games with raids who you must raid to get gear for the next set of content but more of a side content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Dantert.1803" said: > Well I hope Anet sees this...75% is a high enough amount to start at least thinking about changes I'm sure Anet has better measures to gauge what should drive changes than a 100 person vote on a loaded forum poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Dantert.1803" said: > Well I hope Anet sees this...75% is a high enough amount to start at least thinking about changes Yes, if we ignore your highly biased pole. Biased poles like this are meaningless. Which in off its self is another issue, because instead of increasing the valuable information, this just clouds the issue even more. Players in favor of easy modes will look at this pole and go: yes this proves it while not caring how biased or unreliable the given options are. Congratulations, that's how you influence opinion in your desired favor, but hardly create objective valuable facts or metrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. Same thing happened to a lot of people I know. While the open world was the place where you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale raids. I feel raids are a downgrade to Guild Missions from a community aspect. I never had to leave someone behind during those. Guild Mission attendance sadly diminished after HoT release in my old guild due to a lot of people leaving after seeing the initial version of HoT wasn‘t what they expected from GW2. I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. But that‘s nothing new, Anet has a history of failed ventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. The scaling starts at 10 players in flex, given LFR/normal difficulty that means you can do it with less people than 10. My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: - tank - hand kite - black kite - heal - dps while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). EDIT: come to think of it, that is likely also the exact reason why the WoW flex raid count does not go below 10 players. To ensure that encounters and mechanics can be covered by enough players not running the risk of having to rework encounters due to to few players. They could otherwise have easily made flex go down to 5 players for example (which would have also made them to similar to dungeons and mythic instances, which is also an issue). On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. EDIT 2: and before anyone gets the wrong impression, I actually like the flex system in WoW. I personally believe it is one of their better additions as far as flexibility and giving access to players to raids. It is one of their better uses of their scaling slider (and trust me, they use that a lot. Most notable negative change was when all enemies across a similar level suddenly had the exact same stats. Insanely terrible implementation). I'm just thinking out loud which issues this would face when implemented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > - tank > - hand kite > - black kite > - heal > - dps > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > - tank > > - hand kite > > - black kite > > - heal > > - dps > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > @"Raknar.4735" said: > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > @"Raknar.4735" said: > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > > - tank > > > - hand kite > > > - black kite > > > - heal > > > - dps > > > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > > > > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > While it didn‘t happen often, mechanical changes besides amount of players hit, did happen. Sha of Pride and prison amount, or the old Garrosh encounter before being patched would be examples. So yes, it is possible for Anet to do something similiar. > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. > > Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > By scaling down the responsibility on lower player numbers it would benefit weaker players. You could also dynamically scale timers depending on group sizes, increasing the time someone has to do a certain mechanic. > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. > > I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. I‘d go so far that since we don‘t have gear scaling, maybe the starting difficulty of raids shouldn‘t be set so high in GW2. WoW raids will get easier with time, since you‘ll start to outgear encounters until you can completely ignore some of the mechanics, in some cases even wipe mechanics with average skill. So even the worst players in WoW will be able to complete the content. Not to mention that LFR and in many cases normal difficulty is barely failable. Compared to GW2, where the average player does 10x less dps than the top end and can‘t clear within the enrage timer, WoW raids seem pretty forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > > > - tank > > > > - hand kite > > > > - black kite > > > > - heal > > > > - dps > > > > > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > > > > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > > > > > > > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > > > > While it didn‘t happen often, mechanical changes besides amount of players hit, did happen. > Sha of Pride and prison amount, or the old Garrosh encounter before being patched would be examples. > So yes, it is possible for Anet to do something similiar. > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > > > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. > > > > Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > > > > By scaling down the responsibility on lower player numbers it would benefit weaker players. > You could also dynamically scale timers depending on group sizes, increasing the time someone has to do a certain mechanic. > This is all true for not instant fail mechanics, which is what I was referring to. In essence you are asking for the removal of instant fail mechanics from any encounter which is scaled up. > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > > > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. > > > > I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. > > I‘d go so far that since we don‘t have gear scaling, maybe the starting difficulty of raids shouldn‘t be set so high in GW2. > WoW raids will get easier with time, since you‘ll start to outgear encounters until you can completely ignore some of the mechanics, in some cases even wipe mechanics with average skill. So even the worst players in WoW will be able to complete the content. Not to mention that LFR and in many cases normal difficulty is barely failable. > Compared to GW2, where the average player does 10x less dps than the top end and can‘t clear within the enrage timer, WoW raids seem pretty forgiving. True, that I agree with. GW2 raids are more akin to heroic or in some cases mythic light raids when compared to WoW. Less as time in WoW passes on. The huge benefit here that WoW players enjoy is that as the gear level increases, more payers get to see the content. That in turn requires either gear progression, or a significant "dumbing" down of challenging end game content. That's what strikes tried to do, and from my personal subjective impression, failed at (though I specifically add subjective, the developers will have far different numbers). The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. So let's translate this to raids: If raids where made easier, there would be a huge influx of players, again huge can be relative, many of which would take a peek. Many of those players would soon leave, given how this content is not something they enjoy to begin with, or stick around long enough to get the shiny they want, then leave. While the players who actually enjoyed the content would abandon it even faster than they are now. The longterm players I know who have stuck with raids past their few kills or maybe even getting their 750 LI for 3 legendary armors are those who enjoy playing the content. Now this might seem long to some, but think of it this way: 750 LI are around 1 year of 15 LI per week, 30 weeks at 25 LI per week. That's pretty much the time frame you can add longevity wise how long players would stick around that do not enjoy this content, never to return unless new shinnies are gated behind it. That's for players who even go for 3 legendary armors, many would quit far earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): > those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. This almost describes me. It's not the challenge so much as the content itself and the PUGs I end up with. Sure, I could LFG but I really have no compelling desire to do so wrt strikes. > So let's translate this to raids: > If raids where made easier, there would be a huge influx of players, again huge can be relative, many of which would take a peek. Many of those players would soon leave, given how this content is not something they enjoy to begin with, or stick around long enough to get the shiny they want, then leave. While the players who actually enjoyed the content would abandon it even faster than they are now. This would probably be me as well. Not that I am, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, indicative of the "casual" player base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > > > > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > > > > - tank > > > > > - hand kite > > > > > - black kite > > > > > - heal > > > > > - dps > > > > > > > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > > > > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > > > > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > > > > > > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > > > > > > > > > > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > > > > > > > While it didn‘t happen often, mechanical changes besides amount of players hit, did happen. > > Sha of Pride and prison amount, or the old Garrosh encounter before being patched would be examples. > > So yes, it is possible for Anet to do something similiar. > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > > > > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. > > > > > > Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > > > > > > > By scaling down the responsibility on lower player numbers it would benefit weaker players. > > You could also dynamically scale timers depending on group sizes, increasing the time someone has to do a certain mechanic. > > > > This is all true for not instant fail mechanics, which is what I was referring to. In essence you are asking for the removal of instant fail mechanics from any encounter which is scaled up. > Instant fail mechanics, N‘Zoth was notorious for wiping groups in LFR. Those were, of course, hotfixed for a good reason. Instant fail mechanics aren‘t really good design, especially not in PuG‘s / LFR. They are fine in coordinated groups like Mythic, but can still be frustrating to deal with even with the best groups when tied to an even buggier encounter (Azshara hehe). > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > > > > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. > > > > > > I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. > > > > I‘d go so far that since we don‘t have gear scaling, maybe the starting difficulty of raids shouldn‘t be set so high in GW2. > > WoW raids will get easier with time, since you‘ll start to outgear encounters until you can completely ignore some of the mechanics, in some cases even wipe mechanics with average skill. So even the worst players in WoW will be able to complete the content. Not to mention that LFR and in many cases normal difficulty is barely failable. > > Compared to GW2, where the average player does 10x less dps than the top end and can‘t clear within the enrage timer, WoW raids seem pretty forgiving. > > True, that I agree with. GW2 raids are more akin to heroic or in some cases mythic light raids when compared to WoW. Less as time in WoW passes on. The huge benefit here that WoW players enjoy is that as the gear level increases, more payers get to see the content. > They actually get to see the content from the get go, just with a different difficulty. Intelligent design on Blizzards‘ side, they reuse the same assets for different target groups. Nothing is wasted as even the worst players can beat LFR. > That in turn requires either gear progression, or a significant "dumbing" down of challenging end game content. That's what strikes tried to do, and from my personal subjective impression, failed at (though I specifically add subjective, the developers will have far different numbers). > I share this sentiment. I‘d go even as far as saying Strike Missions were doomed to fail from the start for various reasons. > The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): > those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. Mostly agree. Not so much about the terminology as casual/hardcore only depends on time spent dedicated to the game in my opinion. I also see a problem that many don‘t even see a way of entry to raids and get quickly turned off. I wonder if the average player even knows about them. I belong to the group of people that stopped raiding because the current version of the gamemode simply doesn‘t interest me. The only reason I did them was for the rewards. Once I got what I wanted, I dipped out of my static to let someone else take my place that wasn‘t able to get into raids before (he wasn‘t fond of pugging). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): > > those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. > This almost describes me. It's not the challenge so much as the content itself and the PUGs I end up with. Sure, I could LFG but I really have no compelling desire to do so wrt strikes. > > So let's translate this to raids: > > If raids where made easier, there would be a huge influx of players, again huge can be relative, many of which would take a peek. Many of those players would soon leave, given how this content is not something they enjoy to begin with, or stick around long enough to get the shiny they want, then leave. While the players who actually enjoyed the content would abandon it even faster than they are now. > This would probably be me as well. > > Not that I am, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, indicative of the "casual" player base. > I feel you. I haven't stepped into strikes in probably 5+ weeks. Literally the only thing bringing me to the EotN is when new dialogue opens up with a specific NPC. I do enjoy that hub space and hope it gets further expanded upon. > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > > > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > > > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > > > > > - tank > > > > > > - hand kite > > > > > > - black kite > > > > > > - heal > > > > > > - dps > > > > > > > > > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > > > > > > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > > > > > > > > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > While it didn‘t happen often, mechanical changes besides amount of players hit, did happen. > > > Sha of Pride and prison amount, or the old Garrosh encounter before being patched would be examples. > > > So yes, it is possible for Anet to do something similiar. > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > > > > > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. > > > > > > > > Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > > > > > > > > > > By scaling down the responsibility on lower player numbers it would benefit weaker players. > > > You could also dynamically scale timers depending on group sizes, increasing the time someone has to do a certain mechanic. > > > > > > > This is all true for not instant fail mechanics, which is what I was referring to. In essence you are asking for the removal of instant fail mechanics from any encounter which is scaled up. > > > Instant fail mechanics, N‘Zoth was notorious for wiping groups in LFR. Those were, of course, hotfixed for a good reason. Instant fail mechanics aren‘t really good design, especially not in PuG‘s / LFR. > They are fine in coordinated groups like Mythic, but can still be frustrating to deal with even with the best groups when tied to an even buggier encounter (Azshara hehe). > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > > > > > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. > > > > > > > > I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. > > > > > > I‘d go so far that since we don‘t have gear scaling, maybe the starting difficulty of raids shouldn‘t be set so high in GW2. > > > WoW raids will get easier with time, since you‘ll start to outgear encounters until you can completely ignore some of the mechanics, in some cases even wipe mechanics with average skill. So even the worst players in WoW will be able to complete the content. Not to mention that LFR and in many cases normal difficulty is barely failable. > > > Compared to GW2, where the average player does 10x less dps than the top end and can‘t clear within the enrage timer, WoW raids seem pretty forgiving. > > > > True, that I agree with. GW2 raids are more akin to heroic or in some cases mythic light raids when compared to WoW. Less as time in WoW passes on. The huge benefit here that WoW players enjoy is that as the gear level increases, more payers get to see the content. > > > They actually get to see the content from the get go, just with a different difficulty. Intelligent design on Blizzards‘ side, they reuse the same assets for different target groups. Nothing is wasted as even the worst players can beat LFR. > > > That in turn requires either gear progression, or a significant "dumbing" down of challenging end game content. That's what strikes tried to do, and from my personal subjective impression, failed at (though I specifically add subjective, the developers will have far different numbers). > > > I share this sentiment. I‘d go even as far as saying Strike Missions were doomed to fail from the start for various reasons. > > > The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): > > those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. > > Mostly agree. Not so much about the terminology as casual/hardcore only depends on time spent dedicated to the game in my opinion. > > I also see a problem that many don‘t even see a way of entry to raids and get quickly turned off. I wonder if the average player even knows about them. > I belong to the group of people that stopped raiding because the current version of the gamemode simply doesn‘t interest me. The only reason I did them was for the rewards. Once I got what I wanted, I dipped out of my static to let someone else take my place that wasn‘t able to get into raids before (he wasn‘t fond of pugging). The entire discourse got me thinking, maybe instead of aiming for easy mode raids with fixed 10 players some kind of flex system could work (not sure how much work would really have to go into this, even the raid size with 10 players is rather hard coded into the game). It would require a massive amount of changes though. Maybe a first step could be to allow spectator mode for raids first, similar to how spvp allows spectator mode for matches, with some kind of opt in for groups. That could really boost the popularity seeing how the last Elitist Tournament had a lot of viewers. Having players live there to watch and learn would also make life so much easier for trainings and maybe get players curious. All that obviously under the prospect of devoting more developer resources in the first place. I guess we will have to wit and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobx.1758 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > I'll repeat again: if the story that plays itself is all you want then go watch it on youtube and move on to the content you enjoy playing. > > > > > > > > > > So, precisely what people did. People moving on to play the content they enjoy playing, leaving raids behind with a low population. > > > > > According to Andrew Gray, the low population makes it tricky to create more content for raids. > > > > > Voilà, you get the current situation with no raids in sight and Strike Missions trying to save them. > > > > > Self fulfilling prophecy. > > > > > > > > > > I'll just continue enjoying my MMORPG with massive amounts of players in the open world and WvW, instead of non-massive lobby-based instances ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > ...so what's the problem here or how does it change anything I wrote above? :D > > > > > >it doesn't change anything. No problem here. > > > > Cool, thanks for answering then ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > Just don't expect Anet to create new content for you when the content you find fun is pretty niche, if you are against opening up that niche to more players. That would just be entitlement. > > > > Putting aside that "gotcha" moment you've apparently tried having here, I don't know what you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing I wrote, soo... hm? > > No "gotcha" moment here. > I was merely elaborating on what "playing the content one enjoys" could mean for the future of the game content, in relation to population size of different content types if we make the assumption that nothing about the content types changes (as in, no notable changes to a specific game mode that could increase population size, so a stagnant or even decreasing playerbase). > Anet will then take the corresponding action for the game modes in terms of allocation of personnel. If someone then disagree's with Anets' decision, while actively being against any notable changes to his gamemode that could increase the playerbase, they've got no one to blame but themselves (but of course they are going to blame Anet ;)). > > Like I've stated earlier, I'm in agreement that everyone should just play the content he enjoys, I'm not trying to debate you on this, just sharing my opinion ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ Pretending that making an easy solo story mode is any way to build up actual group raiding community is hilarious, it will achieve as much as the current regular story mode bosses for current raiding. So nothing, because why would it change anything in that matter? As per usual by now -I don't know what you're answering to, but it sure isn't anything from my posts, so not sure why you keep quoting me just to derail into some wierd remarks about being entitled or blaming anet about whatever you think they would be blamed for, both of which were simply a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > > > > > I wish GW2 had something similiar to Flexible Raids in WoW, but I doubt Anet will do a lot about it, given the current population situation. > > > > > > > > > > It‘s just puzzling to me that Anet hasn‘t figured out the problem, when other MMO developers already have the solution. There‘s a reason LFR is a thing in WoW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I get what you are aiming for, but not sure you gave this further thought. Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't WoW flex raids start at 10 players, while GW2 raids cap out at 10 players? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would flex raids be comparable? Is your argument that GW2 should have flex raids for 1 to 10 players, or that the current raid size needs to increase to even allow for sensible flex adjustments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WoW 10 mans also used to cap out at 10 players. Flex was introduced so that you could take more people to not leave anyone behind. > > > > > > > > My argument is that flexible group sizes should be a thing. > > > > > > > > The lowest player amount of the groups are something Anet has to decide before implementing and optimize after. Only because WoW has the minimum set to 10 doesn‘t mean GW2 has to. This isn‘t WoW. So it could start at 3, or 5 or 10. There‘s also no boundary for the maximum, it could go up to or even start at 10, 13, 33 or more, depending on Anets‘ findings during tests. The boundaries aren’t set in stone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but it makes a huge difference which of both you mean. A common complaint in GW2 is that raids already take a huge amount of organization, and that is with 10 players. I doubt this would get better with an increased player count, though I do see the appeal to run this as bigger guild maybe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of reducing the player size, there are bosses which would become impossible. Say Deimos, how are you going to: > > > > > > > - tank > > > > > > > - hand kite > > > > > > > - black kite > > > > > > > - heal > > > > > > > - dps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while dealing with the add and getting teleported between 2 areas with less than 5 players? (this can be applied to many bosses be it Dhuum, Twins, Qadim, Qadim 2, Xera, etc. Nearly every boss has some type of mechanics which need to be covered by multiple players). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the flip side, say you increase the amount of players. How would bosses which have mechanics where 1 player failing can cause the entire encounter to fail feel with suddenly 30 players? The reason flex raids work in WoW is because it is a simple scaling process inherent in that games gear system, and even there, there are certain break points of player count which are easier or harder due to even only numeric scaling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not saying this would be a bad idea for GW2, just saying that it would by far not be as easy to implement as in say WoW. > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove mechanics just like WoW already does depending on group size. LFR, Normal HC and Mythic also have different scalings and mechanical changes. WoW scales both in group size as well as difficulty. It‘s not simply numerical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From all I could find, all it does is change the amount of players hit from attacks. Removal of mechanics is not within a flex raid, but between difficulties. Meaning a 10 player flex raid will encounter the exact same mechanics, scaled down to 10 players in damage and healing requirements as well as players hit, as a flex raid with 25 players. The removal of mechanics only happens between different difficulties of that raid say between normal and heroic. Or am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > While it didn‘t happen often, mechanical changes besides amount of players hit, did happen. > > > > Sha of Pride and prison amount, or the old Garrosh encounter before being patched would be examples. > > > > So yes, it is possible for Anet to do something similiar. > > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > Of course there will be optimal group sizes, you can‘t really create a perfect scaling system when players are involved. > > > > > > Encounters where one player can fail the encounter and cause a wipe are nothing new in WoW, same thing for fights with special roles. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but those usually come in at far higher difficulties, and in GW2 case I'm unsure how this would in any way benefit weaker players who are already challenged. It would make for interesting hardcore runs though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > By scaling down the responsibility on lower player numbers it would benefit weaker players. > > > > You could also dynamically scale timers depending on group sizes, increasing the time someone has to do a certain mechanic. > > > > > > > > > > This is all true for not instant fail mechanics, which is what I was referring to. In essence you are asking for the removal of instant fail mechanics from any encounter which is scaled up. > > > > > Instant fail mechanics, N‘Zoth was notorious for wiping groups in LFR. Those were, of course, hotfixed for a good reason. Instant fail mechanics aren‘t really good design, especially not in PuG‘s / LFR. > > They are fine in coordinated groups like Mythic, but can still be frustrating to deal with even with the best groups when tied to an even buggier encounter (Azshara hehe). > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > Heal/Tanks/DPS is just the basis in WoW, not every fight boils down to tank and spank. > > > > > > The gear system just helps making encounters easy by overgearing, it doesn‘t really have any bearing on flex. > > > > > > > > > > I will have to disagree here given that outgearing content directly means being able to carry weaker players. You should know that. It has no bearing on the scaling yes, which makes it even more potent when outgeared players come in. > > > > > > > > I‘d go so far that since we don‘t have gear scaling, maybe the starting difficulty of raids shouldn‘t be set so high in GW2. > > > > WoW raids will get easier with time, since you‘ll start to outgear encounters until you can completely ignore some of the mechanics, in some cases even wipe mechanics with average skill. So even the worst players in WoW will be able to complete the content. Not to mention that LFR and in many cases normal difficulty is barely failable. > > > > Compared to GW2, where the average player does 10x less dps than the top end and can‘t clear within the enrage timer, WoW raids seem pretty forgiving. > > > > > > True, that I agree with. GW2 raids are more akin to heroic or in some cases mythic light raids when compared to WoW. Less as time in WoW passes on. The huge benefit here that WoW players enjoy is that as the gear level increases, more payers get to see the content. > > > > > They actually get to see the content from the get go, just with a different difficulty. Intelligent design on Blizzards‘ side, they reuse the same assets for different target groups. Nothing is wasted as even the worst players can beat LFR. > > > > > That in turn requires either gear progression, or a significant "dumbing" down of challenging end game content. That's what strikes tried to do, and from my personal subjective impression, failed at (though I specifically add subjective, the developers will have far different numbers). > > > > > I share this sentiment. I‘d go even as far as saying Strike Missions were doomed to fail from the start for various reasons. > > > > > The problem with challenging content is simple (and why strikes are where they are now): > > > those who enjoy, it enjoy it for the challenge and stick with it due to that challenge, until they quit. Those who do not enjoy the challenge either never play the content, or drop out after seeing it a few times. That's why strikes are dying out as time progresses. The only players left are the hardcore players who haven't grown bored (I believe most have) while the vast majority of more casual players (meaning in this case players who do not enjoy challenging content, not mean in a negative way) dropped out months ago, and some farmers. > > > > Mostly agree. Not so much about the terminology as casual/hardcore only depends on time spent dedicated to the game in my opinion. > > > > I also see a problem that many don‘t even see a way of entry to raids and get quickly turned off. I wonder if the average player even knows about them. > > I belong to the group of people that stopped raiding because the current version of the gamemode simply doesn‘t interest me. The only reason I did them was for the rewards. Once I got what I wanted, I dipped out of my static to let someone else take my place that wasn‘t able to get into raids before (he wasn‘t fond of pugging). > > The entire discourse got me thinking, maybe instead of aiming for easy mode raids with fixed 10 players some kind of flex system could work (not sure how much work would really have to go into this, even the raid size with 10 players is rather hard coded into the game). It would require a massive amount of changes though. > > Maybe a first step could be to allow spectator mode for raids first, similar to how spvp allows spectator mode for matches, with some kind of opt in for groups. That could really boost the popularity seeing how the last Elitist Tournament had a lot of viewers. Having players live there to watch and learn would also make life so much easier for trainings and maybe get players curious. > > All that obviously under the prospect of devoting more developer resources in the first place. I guess we will have to wit and see. Flex is just the first part that lets everyone participate that already wants to raid. We‘ll definitely need it in the future for raids to prosper, as it allows for an easier time in group. Login and play, instead of login and wait is a huge incentive, especially for people without a static. Learning by playing is easier than learning by seeing. I know I‘ve said this multiple times already: Blizzard is doing something very intelligent here. LFR allows the people to create a bond to raids, that‘s why world-firsts are so popular on Twitch. They know the mechanics of the bosses, because they fought them themselves, just an easier version. They‘ve been there themselves! One of the reasons I think Strike Missions were doomed to fail, as I mentioned earlier is that they don‘t create this bond as they are totally different bosses. Obviously it will need a lot of developer attention, sadly Strike Missions got the attention in the hope to get people into raiding, without creating that bond. So yes, we‘ll have to wait and see, but I‘m not very optimistic about it. Blizzard already shared their solution, Anet just has to look at it. > So let's translate this to raids: > If raids where made easier, there would be a huge influx of players, again huge can be relative, many of which would take a peek. Many of those players would soon leave, given how this content is not something they enjoy to begin with, or stick around long enough to get the shiny they want, then leave. While the players who actually enjoyed the content would abandon it even faster than they are now. I don‘t necessarily agree. Bringing more players into raids would be huge for assets reuse. It doesn‘t matter if the content is farmed, as long as players are actively looking to do it. It‘s the same with the story for many players (I suppose, no numbers so baseless assumption). It‘s a do once and done deal. But herein lies the beauty: You just reuse everything, change a few mechanics here and there, and create a new tier above it. And then another for the extremely dedicated raiders. You can do that, because you‘re not only designing for a small amount of people, but everyone, just like Forging Steel (which was honestly a really boring escort mission). But everyone was able to do it. They could have created a harder Forging Steel on top of that (ignoring the motes since they aren‘t really hard, and escort quests aren‘t really exciting as raids, so maybe not FS, but a future 10man story ;)). The same thing could have been done for some of the Story fights, Mordemoth had the really clunky version, but without rewards, of course no one is going to replay it. TL;DR Designing content in a way it can be used by multiple target groups is intelligent. The current raids, as well as the story aren‘t like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrForz.1953 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 I'm guessing I'm way too late to warn about opening a can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobx.1758 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > Same thing happened to a lot of people I know. While the open world was the place where you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale raids. Someone explain to me how releasing additional content/gamemode somehow "sucked the life out" of the rest of the game. Btw, you've voted for "I would like to have a story and easy mode for raids **so that the population has the chance to grow and we can finally have more raids.**", but you just keep arguing against the raiding in general. And what about other limited-group content like pvp, story instances or fractals? Didn't those suck the life out of the game for both of you (and your friends, I guess) when you had to "leave your guildmates behind"? Why are these somehow different for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > I'll repeat again: if the story that plays itself is all you want then go watch it on youtube and move on to the content you enjoy playing. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, precisely what people did. People moving on to play the content they enjoy playing, leaving raids behind with a low population. > > > > > > According to Andrew Gray, the low population makes it tricky to create more content for raids. > > > > > > Voilà, you get the current situation with no raids in sight and Strike Missions trying to save them. > > > > > > Self fulfilling prophecy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll just continue enjoying my MMORPG with massive amounts of players in the open world and WvW, instead of non-massive lobby-based instances ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > ...so what's the problem here or how does it change anything I wrote above? :D > > > > > > > >it doesn't change anything. No problem here. > > > > > > Cool, thanks for answering then ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > Just don't expect Anet to create new content for you when the content you find fun is pretty niche, if you are against opening up that niche to more players. That would just be entitlement. > > > > > > Putting aside that "gotcha" moment you've apparently tried having here, I don't know what you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing I wrote, soo... hm? > > > > No "gotcha" moment here. > > I was merely elaborating on what "playing the content one enjoys" could mean for the future of the game content, in relation to population size of different content types if we make the assumption that nothing about the content types changes (as in, no notable changes to a specific game mode that could increase population size, so a stagnant or even decreasing playerbase). > > Anet will then take the corresponding action for the game modes in terms of allocation of personnel. If someone then disagree's with Anets' decision, while actively being against any notable changes to his gamemode that could increase the playerbase, they've got no one to blame but themselves (but of course they are going to blame Anet ;)). > > > > Like I've stated earlier, I'm in agreement that everyone should just play the content he enjoys, I'm not trying to debate you on this, just sharing my opinion ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > Pretending that making an easy solo story mode is any way to build up actual group raiding community is hilarious, it will achieve as much as the current regular story mode bosses for current raiding. So nothing, because why would it change anything in that matter? > As per usual by now -I don't know what you're answering to, but it sure isn't anything from my posts, so not sure why you keep quoting me just to derail into some wierd remarks about being entitled or blaming anet about whatever you think they would be blamed for, both of which were simply a miss. Huh? I‘m not sure where you got the easy solo story mode thing. Actually, I‘m sorry to say that I don‘t get your whole argument here, or what you‘re referring to. I‘m just agreeing that people should play what they enjoy and that Anet will then develop content depending on what they think is best. I‘m not blaming Anet one bit here, they just create things based on their internal data. I‘m actually really not sure why you‘re trying to turn this into some weird debate thing. I‘m just sharing my opinion on this topic, using your „everyone should play what he enjoys“ as an anchor point. If you don‘t think something is relevant, feel free to ignore it. Not everything is directed at you, but the topic at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > Same thing happened to a lot of people I know. While the open world was the place where you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale raids. > > Someone explain to me how releasing additional content/gamemode somehow "sucked the life out" of the rest of the game. > Btw, you've voted for "I would like to have a story and easy mode for raids **so that the population has the chance to grow and we can finally have more raids.**", but you just keep arguing against the raiding in general. > And what about other limited-group content like pvp, story instances or fractals? Didn't those suck the life out of the game for both of you (and your friends, I guess) when you had to "leave your guildmates behind"? Why are these somehow different for you? But I‘m not arguing against raids. I‘m arguing against the current version of raids, as I see no future in them in the long run. That‘s what the topic is about, is it not? The low playerbase and ways to increase it. Not sure about you, but I helped plenty of people in story and fractals, never had to leave someone behind there. That said, I would also like a flex system for both story and fractals, if possible. Most of my friends don‘t play PvP. I also would like a true solo queue more, as PvP is more of a ladder thing than PvE content, unless you‘re into speedrunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobx.1758 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > I'll repeat again: if the story that plays itself is all you want then go watch it on youtube and move on to the content you enjoy playing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, precisely what people did. People moving on to play the content they enjoy playing, leaving raids behind with a low population. > > > > > > > According to Andrew Gray, the low population makes it tricky to create more content for raids. > > > > > > > Voilà, you get the current situation with no raids in sight and Strike Missions trying to save them. > > > > > > > Self fulfilling prophecy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll just continue enjoying my MMORPG with massive amounts of players in the open world and WvW, instead of non-massive lobby-based instances ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > ...so what's the problem here or how does it change anything I wrote above? :D > > > > > > > > > >it doesn't change anything. No problem here. > > > > > > > > Cool, thanks for answering then ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just don't expect Anet to create new content for you when the content you find fun is pretty niche, if you are against opening up that niche to more players. That would just be entitlement. > > > > > > > > Putting aside that "gotcha" moment you've apparently tried having here, I don't know what you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing I wrote, soo... hm? > > > > > > No "gotcha" moment here. > > > I was merely elaborating on what "playing the content one enjoys" could mean for the future of the game content, in relation to population size of different content types if we make the assumption that nothing about the content types changes (as in, no notable changes to a specific game mode that could increase population size, so a stagnant or even decreasing playerbase). > > > Anet will then take the corresponding action for the game modes in terms of allocation of personnel. If someone then disagree's with Anets' decision, while actively being against any notable changes to his gamemode that could increase the playerbase, they've got no one to blame but themselves (but of course they are going to blame Anet ;)). > > > > > > Like I've stated earlier, I'm in agreement that everyone should just play the content he enjoys, I'm not trying to debate you on this, just sharing my opinion ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > Pretending that making an easy solo story mode is any way to build up actual group raiding community is hilarious, it will achieve as much as the current regular story mode bosses for current raiding. So nothing, because why would it change anything in that matter? > > As per usual by now -I don't know what you're answering to, but it sure isn't anything from my posts, so not sure why you keep quoting me just to derail into some wierd remarks about being entitled or blaming anet about whatever you think they would be blamed for, both of which were simply a miss. > > Huh? I‘m not sure where you got the easy solo story mode thing. Actually, I‘m sorry to say that I don‘t get your whole argument here, or what you‘re referring to. This is what this thread and my previous posts (that you've answered to) are about, what about this is unclear? > I‘m actually really not sure why you‘re trying to turn this into some weird debate thing. I‘m just sharing my opinion on this topic, using your „everyone should play what he enjoys“ as an anchor point. If you don‘t think something is relevant, feel free to ignore it. Not everything is directed at you, but the topic at large. That's the part I didn't understand -you've quoted me and then proceeded to respond to me about things I never said, if it's not directed at me then don't quote me so I won't get the notification about the unrelated answer. You really don't need any anchor point to share your opinion in a thread and I don't have a problem with you having one, more about it being unrelated to what I said. > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > Same thing happened to a lot of people I know. While the open world was the place where you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale raids. > > > > Someone explain to me how releasing additional content/gamemode somehow "sucked the life out" of the rest of the game. > > Btw, you've voted for "I would like to have a story and easy mode for raids **so that the population has the chance to grow and we can finally have more raids.**", but you just keep arguing against the raiding in general. > > And what about other limited-group content like pvp, story instances or fractals? Didn't those suck the life out of the game for both of you (and your friends, I guess) when you had to "leave your guildmates behind"? Why are these somehow different for you? > > But I‘m not arguing against raids. I‘m arguing against the current version of raids, as I see no future in them in the long run. That‘s what the topic is about, is it not? The low playerbase and ways to increase it. Ok, but you see what I've quoted right? Can you explain what this is about in relation to this thread: "*While the open world was the place where **you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale** raids.*"? It seems like a complaint aimed at limited number of players that can join the content (as opposed to massive OW), which is why I've asked about other limited-group instanced content and how is this an argument against 10-player raids, but not against 5-player *whatever else*. > Not sure about you, but I helped plenty of people in story and fractals, never had to leave someone behind there. That said, I would also like a flex system for both story and fractals, if possible. Ok, this is good. But why is this not possible for raids as well? I've seen plenty of people initially thinking it's too hard (without even trying it in the first place), but after joining training groups they learn the mechanics and are able to go through the content. Why can you teach people in instance a, b and c, but this one is somehow unplayable? > Most of my friends don‘t play PvP. I also would like a true solo queue more, as PvP is more of a ladder thing than PvE content, unless you‘re into speedrunning. Understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raknar.4735 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > I'll repeat again: if the story that plays itself is all you want then go watch it on youtube and move on to the content you enjoy playing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, precisely what people did. People moving on to play the content they enjoy playing, leaving raids behind with a low population. > > > > > > > > According to Andrew Gray, the low population makes it tricky to create more content for raids. > > > > > > > > Voilà, you get the current situation with no raids in sight and Strike Missions trying to save them. > > > > > > > > Self fulfilling prophecy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll just continue enjoying my MMORPG with massive amounts of players in the open world and WvW, instead of non-massive lobby-based instances ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...so what's the problem here or how does it change anything I wrote above? :D > > > > > > > > > > > >it doesn't change anything. No problem here. > > > > > > > > > > Cool, thanks for answering then ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just don't expect Anet to create new content for you when the content you find fun is pretty niche, if you are against opening up that niche to more players. That would just be entitlement. > > > > > > > > > > Putting aside that "gotcha" moment you've apparently tried having here, I don't know what you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing I wrote, soo... hm? > > > > > > > > No "gotcha" moment here. > > > > I was merely elaborating on what "playing the content one enjoys" could mean for the future of the game content, in relation to population size of different content types if we make the assumption that nothing about the content types changes (as in, no notable changes to a specific game mode that could increase population size, so a stagnant or even decreasing playerbase). > > > > Anet will then take the corresponding action for the game modes in terms of allocation of personnel. If someone then disagree's with Anets' decision, while actively being against any notable changes to his gamemode that could increase the playerbase, they've got no one to blame but themselves (but of course they are going to blame Anet ;)). > > > > > > > > Like I've stated earlier, I'm in agreement that everyone should just play the content he enjoys, I'm not trying to debate you on this, just sharing my opinion ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > Pretending that making an easy solo story mode is any way to build up actual group raiding community is hilarious, it will achieve as much as the current regular story mode bosses for current raiding. So nothing, because why would it change anything in that matter? > > > As per usual by now -I don't know what you're answering to, but it sure isn't anything from my posts, so not sure why you keep quoting me just to derail into some wierd remarks about being entitled or blaming anet about whatever you think they would be blamed for, both of which were simply a miss. > > > > Huh? I‘m not sure where you got the easy solo story mode thing. Actually, I‘m sorry to say that I don‘t get your whole argument here, or what you‘re referring to. > > This is what this thread and my previous posts (that you've answered to) are about, what about this is unclear? > I've actually never thought this was about an easy "solo" story mode, so yeah, color me surprised. I was thinking more in terms of Forging Steel, which is a 10man-story instance. > > I‘m actually really not sure why you‘re trying to turn this into some weird debate thing. I‘m just sharing my opinion on this topic, using your „everyone should play what he enjoys“ as an anchor point. If you don‘t think something is relevant, feel free to ignore it. Not everything is directed at you, but the topic at large. > > That's the part I didn't understand -you've quoted me and then proceeded to respond to me about things I never said, if it's not directed at me then don't quote me so I won't get the notification about the unrelated answer. You really don't need any anchor point to share your opinion in a thread and I don't have a problem with you having one, more about it being unrelated to what I said. > Yeah, but the anchor point was related to the "play what you enjoy". I mean, you could also stop replying to my unrelated things by simply not quoting me. But instead you blew this up into something bigger for no reason at all. > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said: > > > > > @"Asgaeroth.6427" said: > > > > > Raid launch sucked the life out of GW2 for me. > > > > > > > > Same thing happened to a lot of people I know. While the open world was the place where you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale raids. > > > > > > Someone explain to me how releasing additional content/gamemode somehow "sucked the life out" of the rest of the game. > > > Btw, you've voted for "I would like to have a story and easy mode for raids **so that the population has the chance to grow and we can finally have more raids.**", but you just keep arguing against the raiding in general. > > > And what about other limited-group content like pvp, story instances or fractals? Didn't those suck the life out of the game for both of you (and your friends, I guess) when you had to "leave your guildmates behind"? Why are these somehow different for you? > > > > But I‘m not arguing against raids. I‘m arguing against the current version of raids, as I see no future in them in the long run. That‘s what the topic is about, is it not? The low playerbase and ways to increase it. > > Ok, but you see what I've quoted right? Can you explain what this is about in relation to this thread: "*While the open world was the place where **you had massive communities of people playing together, you could only bring a select few of people to the lobby based smallscale** raids.*"? > > It seems like a complaint aimed at limited number of players that can join the content (as opposed to massive OW), which is why I've asked about other limited-group instanced content and how is this an argument against 10-player raids, but not against 5-player *whatever else*. > Except I've already stated that a flex mode would be great to have in story, fractals etc. too. This topic is about raids after all, not about fractals, PvP nor story, so my opinion on them is pretty unrelated, don't you think? So yes, I do want raids to have the same pick up who you want without those tight "10man" restictions that is available through flex in WoW. > > Not sure about you, but I helped plenty of people in story and fractals, never had to leave someone behind there. That said, I would also like a flex system for both story and fractals, if possible. > > Ok, this is good. But why is this not possible for raids as well? I've seen plenty of people initially thinking it's too hard (without even trying it in the first place), but after joining training groups they learn the mechanics and are able to go through the content. Why can you teach people in instance a, b and c, but this one is somehow unplayable? > It's pretty hard to carry and train many people through raids by yourself. Way easier in low lvl fractals. And still, a flexsystem for fractals would be great, too. Look, you can move the goalpost to wherever you want far away from raids. To fractals, story etc, but that won't change the situation raids are currently in. Keeping raids as they currently are will not save them. They will end up just like dungeons if there's no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icewolf.1076 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 story and easy mode is not going to change anything. you need to put time and effort into it to get into raids. the start is always the hardest. Biggest example that it wount work is strikes. they made strikes as a go between to get into raids but ppl dont go into raids after. they stick to easy content where 5 ppl can carry if need be. Anet themselves said there is a large gap between the average casual player and the people in the end game content like fractal cms and raids. it all comes down to the will to do it and putting some time and effort into it and you will progress. too many just dont want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now