What about a story and easy mode for the Raids?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Group content is one of the good things in this game. It forces players to engage with each other, and that is needed in order to build communities, with similar interests. It's bad enough we have a Trading Post that requires no interaction, Instant Teleportation to any location in the world that requires no interaction, and instant Level up's which requires no interactions. People are so comfortable in their own bubble of safety, that anything that requires another human being or is not instantly gratifying is marked as too much effort.

 

I'm not against normal mode versions of raids. But they shouldn't be less than 10 men/woman, and they definitely shouldn't be solo. There might be an overwhelming amount of players who play this game solo in PVE, but designing the game to cater to this behavior actually saps the fun out of it for people who want to interact with other people, and as a consequence communities don't form, and people leave the game and the game eventually dies in a silent whimper.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Black Wolf.7348" said:

> 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.

 

You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the easy mode being a stairway through which more players will enter the hard mode. You're right that this is not going to work (or at least not to the degree where it would be worth the resources spent). The real gain for raids is somewhere else. You need to stop thinking about hard mode population only, but start to think about the impact of increasing the _total_ raid population (with easy mode included). If a lot of people get interested in easy mode, then the overall raid population would increase, and that might persuade devs that raids are worth spending resources on, after all. And this would benefit hard mode as well.

 

Strikes, by the way, can't do that - because they are a separate mode. The bigger population in strikes can at best persuade devs to spend more resources on _strikes_. It won't persuade them to get back to making more raids.

 

[Sigmoid.7082]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Black Wolf.7348" said:

> > 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.

>

> You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the easy mode being a stairway through which more players will enter the hard mode. You're right that this is not going to work (or at least not to the degree where it would be worth the resources spent). The real gain for raids is somewhere else. You need to stop thinking about hard mode population only, but start to think about the impact of increasing the _total_ raid population (with easy mode included). If a lot of people get interested in easy mode, then the overall raid population would increase, and that might persuade devs that raids are worth spending resources on, after all. And this would benefit hard mode as well.

>

> Strikes, by the way, can't do that - because they are a separate mode. The bigger population in strikes can at best persuade devs to spend more resources on _strikes_. It won't persuade them to get back to making more raids.

>

 

So that's the fundamental difference between strikes and easy mode ?

 

What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

[Ashantara.8731]

Since you don't really get the time to explore and discover the story of raid wings, I am all for a story mode that allows us to simply discover their story as many are story-rich, but you never get to read any scriptures lying around, never get to talk to NPCs, never get to dive into the story of the instance. It's all reduced to fighting and mechanics.

[Fueki.4753]

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

 

It'd obviously increase the player participation in raids.

It'd let players experience the lore that is presented inside, which currently is blocked off for most players.

If the easy mode participation is high enough, Arenanet might even make more raids.

 

Strikes Missions obviously only show the participation in Strike Missions.

There is no lore exclusive to them and most strikes merely are stronger versions of Story bosses.

 

 

 

 

[Sigmoid.7082]

> @"Fueki.4753" said:

> Strikes Missions obviously only show the participation in Strike Missions.

> There is no lore exclusive to them and most strikes merely are stronger versions of Story bosses.

>

 

So the name and one has lore?

 

[Sinifair.1026]

> @"Vavume.8065" said:

> Raid difficulties don't need to change, elitist mentalities do.

 

I'd say that is only part of the solution, though. Some people don't know what their professions are capable of, and therefore "lack" the skill. I somewhat agree with you, however, I think that there needs to be some way for new raid players to get better. I don't think it is entirely on the community, though.

 

If people only have a limited amount of time and want to get the weekly raids done, you can't really fault them for not wanting to spend a lot of time training new players. But they shouldn't complain, if the community isn't growing either, when they kick would-be new people trying to engage with the content.

 

- GW2 as a game needs to do more to engage players with the mechanics. FFXIV has training missions that teaches you about tanking, healing, dps and positioning. GW2 needs something similar to properly teach players about combo fields and such. Poor game and tutorial design cannot be excused away and put on the community to fix.

- At the same time, the communities of GW2 need to help guide new players into the content, explain some tips and tricks that might be more advanced. That is the only way the communities can stay healthy and grow. And that is relevant to all the communities in GW2.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> So that's the fundamental difference between strikes and easy mode ?

>

> What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

I thought i have already explained that.

 

Raids and Strikes do not share resources. A such, decision to support either is done separately, using numbers from each mode. So, even if Strikes were to achieve a massive success, it would in no way translate in spending even a tiny bit of resources on raids.

In case of easy mode, some (if not most) resources would be shared (as those would be ultimately the same encounters, with some adjustments). As such, the decision about how much resources should be spent on raids would be done using the _total_ population of all modes. So, for example, even if the community for current raids was so small it would not justify spending any resources on them if judged separately, it is possible that with big enough population in easy mode, the overall raid population would become big enough that even hard mode would see some support.

 

_That_ is the difference. Basically, Raiders, by trying so hard to differentiate themselves from more casual players, and to preserve the elitist feel of raids, in reality are working against having their mode supported more.

 

[Zaxares.5419]

> @"Sinifair.1026" said:

> > @"Vavume.8065" said:

> > Raid difficulties don't need to change, elitist mentalities do.

>

> I'd say that is only part of the solution, though. Some people don't know what their professions are capable of, and therefore "lack" the skill. I somewhat agree with you, however, I think that there needs to be some way for new raid players to get better. I don't think it is entirely on the community, though.

>

> If people only have a limited amount of time and want to get the weekly raids done, you can't really fault them for not wanting to spend a lot of time training new players. But they shouldn't complain, if the community isn't growing either, when they kick would-be new people trying to engage with the content.

>

> - GW2 as a game needs to do more to engage players with the mechanics. FFXIV has training missions that teaches you about tanking, healing, dps and positioning. GW2 needs something similar to properly teach players about combo fields and such. Poor game and tutorial design cannot be excused away and put on the community to fix.

> - At the same time, the communities of GW2 need to help guide new players into the content, explain some tips and tricks that might be more advanced. That is the only way the communities can stay healthy and grow. And that is relevant to all the communities in GW2.

 

Agreed on both counts, which is why I think there should be a couple more ways to help ease newer players into raids without expecting them to have to step up and start pulling their weight immediately. I have two ideas for this:

 

1. Firstly, we can consider increasing the raid squad size to 15. Adding 5 more players means that there is now a great deal more "cushion" for meeting DPS/CC checks and mechanics that require numbers, meaning that barriers to entry based on gear or even builds isn't as strict anymore. We already have groups that can low-man various raid encounters; a 15-man squad means that these groups could easily just throw open the gates to 5 newbies. The additional DPS or boons won't hurt, and the newbies can gain valuable experience without worrying that ignorance or a screw-up on their part will result in a total failure.

2. Secondly, what about "Guild Raids"? It's no secret that the activities for guilds to do together has more or less languished in obscurity for quite some time now. No new guild missions have been released since the release of HoT, and it seems to me that allowing guilds to construct a device/consumable (similar to the Guild World Event Schematic) that allows them to bring in a much larger squad (while I think bringing in a full 50-man guild squad would be hilariously fun in its own way, it would probably be too messy with far too many particle effects. Maybe a 20-30 man limit?) would be a perfect compromise. Veteran raiders in the guild can lead the charge (and the construction of the device would probably require Magnetite or maybe raid boss trophies?), and the newbies as above would get valuable experience without having to worry overmuch about their build or gear. What's more, this could also solve the "Story mode" requests that some people have been asking for. With such a large squad, victory is more or less almost assured, so the guild can take their time slowly moving through the raid wing and letting people experience dialogues and read texts at their own pace. Being a "raiding guild" could also be a good advertisement for these guilds, people who can take newbies under their wing and show them parts of the game they would otherwise never experience on their own.

[Sigmoid.7082]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > So that's the fundamental difference between strikes and easy mode ?

> >

> > What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

> I thought i have already explained that.

>

> Raids and Strikes do not share resources. A such, decision to support either is done separately, using numbers from each mode. So, even if Strikes were to achieve a massive success, it would in no way translate in spending even a tiny bit of resources on raids.

> In case of easy mode, some (if not most) resources would be shared (as those would be ultimately the same encounters, with some adjustments). As such, the decision about how much resources should be spent on raids would be done using the _total_ population of all modes. So, for example, even if the community for current raids was so small it would not justify spending any resources on them if judged separately, it is possible that with big enough population in easy mode, the overall raid population would become big enough that even hard mode would see some support.

>

> _That_ is the difference. Basically, Raiders, by trying so hard to differentiate themselves from more casual players, and to preserve the elitist feel of raids, in reality are working against having their mode supported more.

>

 

Do we have a quote that they don't share resources?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> Do we have a quote that they don't share resources?

Why would we even need one? Those are completely different encounters...

 

[Arewn.2368]

Raids are not difficult and there's no reason to make an easy mode.

 

This completely misidentifies the problem. ANet's class and group composition design is the key barrier to entry. There's an inordinately large performance gap between new and experienced players which needs to be addressed.

And not from a l2p perspective.

This is a class design problem, they need to adjust balance such that low skill/new players are doing more damage.

That's not to say skill shouldn't be rewarded with higher damage. Of course it should. But the difference shouldn't be 10s of times more.

The other problem is that proper group composition provides, again, an inordinately large jump in performance/damage. Meanwhile proper group comp is unintuitive and can be difficulty to meet. I know there's no holy trinity, but the game none the less has roles that need filling.

ANet needs to distinguish and recognize these roles at least a little, and make sure there are multiple classes able to competitively fill them.

[yann.1946]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".

> > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.

> > >

> > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.

> > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.

>

> That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".

>

> While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.

 

We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.

If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)

[yann.1946]

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > @"WindBlade.8749" said:

> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > > @"CashCow.9548" said:

> > > > > > I want raid rewards with out ever raiding.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please, Anet. I am so casual and not really interested in playing your game but pleaase give me the rewards anyways, I insist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, imagine the horror if every player could go through something that was designed for solo and scaled for groups so everyone could participate in the content. I can imagine it now... Wait, i can't see any downside to this. Except then people couldn't boast about clearing the "difficult" thing, again.

> > > >

> > > > Group content needs people to participate in an actual group. Opening some kind of "solo modes" for group content pretty much kills group content, because usually it will be easier and faster (and preeeeeetty sure that's what people vouching for it also want). This is an mmorpg, having some group content is usually desirable by default.

> > > > Here, "found" a downside for you.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you want rewards for completing the content, then you need to learn and complete the content. If you don't want to complete the content -for literally any relevant or irrelevant reason you're capable of comming up with- then you'll get no rewards for that content. I don't see anything bad about that tbh.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Still wonder why people are so obsessed with rewards when there is no gear treadmill. Let me guess: they stuff sells really well for a lot of gold?

> > > >

> > > > I'll need you to explain how is this supposed to be some kind of great catch. Are you upset that people are able to learn/play through content and use (or sell) their drops as they see fit or what is this sentence about?

> > >

> > > You know, i know it's true and i will have to say this: If people play group content only because it's enforced, that just proves that nobody actually WANTS to group up with random mooks, which is obvious. If they could without any extra benefit, then people could play with their friends and/or solo when they feel like it, because there is no requirement for it. If they want to suffer through other people and their requirements and all that rot, then that is also their own choice and they can live with the consequences. Only downside is game developers obsessions and lack of thinking outside the hunderd times recycled old box.

> > >

> > > Since when is it a good idea to force the developers preferred playstyle down the players throat? Because the other games did it first? Yeah, great reasoning that.

> > > If there wasn't any story in the raids then i couldn't care less, but since there is, why is it shoved into that steaming pile of garbage? Because someone else did it, and that means anet and the rest just recycled the same old kitten, as per the usual. The same old, same old...

> > >

> > > Your question seems pointless, as the answer is pretty self-explanatory. You don't want the stuff to be widely available, because that would cut into your profit and/or you flaunting it around would ring rather hollow as it's more widely available. Really, i don't care about your precious stuff, you can keep it all. Can't speak for others though.

> >

> > Yea, except that just the gamestyle you prefer, a lot of people do raids because it's hard and engaging in a group content. It's not the raider fault if other people don't want to do "hard" group content together and so have less supply, raids profits is already a joke anyway, you will get way more gold in openworld so your argument is already felling.

> >

> > If people love raids, it's because it's engaging, you can't be brainless except if you really know the fight by hearth and have a perfect team, which is rarely the case, even in roster or raid guild.

> >

> > Raider don't play the raid in group because it's forced, it's because it's in group and is not braindead that they play the thing.

> > And why a gamemode can't have something to him like lore or story to it just because you don't like it, it's pure entitilement, i don't play wvw or spvp, but i will not care if they get exclusive rewards, it's not like i can't go play them to get them, i could get to it and get it. Plus side note, most of lore behind raids are not even related to the main plot but more gw1 or backstory.

> >

> > Openworld players have like +30 legendary gear they can get, but god, when they can't get one armor and one ring it's heresy. Even if it's usless for casual player to switch stats opposed to wvw/HL content where it's usful to switch stats often.

> >

> > Sure a story mode will be nice, but like everyone said it here, there should be no raid reward in it, maybe some skins unique to it. But it's a story mode anyway, it's should only be here for the story or to train.

>

> Yea, except if most raiders would admit what they actually do, and some of them actually have but that thread got deleted, we all find out how they do everything in their power, and use every exploit to skip as much of the "difficulty" as possible. There is nothing more brainded than doing the same exact thing over and over and over, which is the only thing raids have in them. Know the dance? THEN DANCE! But even that is too much time "wasted", so just skip everything you possibly can to get to the precious rewards, the only thing people covet over everything else. Even fun is less important than stuff.

>

> Also, if they make a solo version of raids, why would that mean it requires less effort to complete it? Sure they would have to actually put some effort and imagination into it, which is more than can be said of the same old recycled raids anet simply copied from other games.

 

Let's make something clear,

their are two mayor differences in how people who enjoy difficult content enjoy difficult content.

1) The puzzle/progression aspect. Figuring out how things work and solving the puzzle piece by piece.

2) The perfection of strategies/ mastery. Because their is quite a big amount of difficulty in improving yourself. to give the dance example, ever watched a proffesional dance competition? Do you think its not difficult to dance at that level even if its just doing the same dance over and over.

[Ototo.3214]

I would love there to be a story mode for raids. I think it could be beneficial to both the casuals and experienced raiders. As someone that is both interested in the lore of the world and doing raids, it gets kinda frustrating that it's hard to enjoy the raid story when you're just trying to quickly skip through everything to just get your clear for the week. Would be nice to have a story mode so anyone can enjoy the story of the raid wings, and then have the current mode but maybe shave off all the RP between some of the bosses so it can get going a little faster for the people that just want their clears.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".

> > > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.

> > > >

> > > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.

> > > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.

> >

> > That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".

> >

> > While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.

>

> We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.

> If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)

 

Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.

And btw I'm not sure what's the point of this response. In my eyes it's basically: "I can answer to what you said, but I won't, so let me know if you want me to answer". Am I supposed to ask you for the links (hopefully related to gw2) or something? How about next time you want to answer to what I wrote, you just... do it?

 

Also adding "of course most top end players of a game know these things" makes me feel you didn't understand the post I've answered to and subsequentially didn't understand my response. But I can be wrong because for some reason you've decided not to include anything you're talking about so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to throw blind guesses here or not.

[Linken.6345]

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> Since you don't really get the time to explore and discover the story of raid wings, I am all for a story mode that allows us to simply discover their story as many are story-rich, but you never get to read any scriptures lying around, never get to talk to NPCs, never get to dive into the story of the instance. It's all reduced to fighting and mechanics.

 

Thats what you do after you finished the instance and its cleaned of enemys

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.

It's not. Illusion of difficulty is the very basis of still sticking to the holy trinity idea in MMORPGs long after the original reason for its appearance (extremely poor mob AI in first cRPG games) completely disappeared. It's a system that's being continued in most MMORPGs for the sole purpose of making it _easier_ for the players, without them noticing it. And it's a system that is the mainstay of most high-level content in MMORPGs - even in gw2, where they had to forcefully add it to a system that was originally built around completely different design guidelines (dumbing that system in the process).

 

Current raid fights in GW2 are bending the combat system backwards in order to eliminate those features of the system that could make the whole encounter actually truly difficult (even in repeated attempts). And they do so, because many of the so called "hardcore" players simply could not take that kind of difficulty. But of course it's never a good idea to tell that to the players themselves - it's best if they believe they succeed completely due to their own effort, without noticing that the whole system is skewed towards their strong points and away from their weak ones.

 

The raid encounters were designed in such a way that a certain percentage of players, those used to holy trinity-based gameplay from other MMORPGs, would be able to pass them. Without noticing, that, in truth, that those encounters were specifically tailored so that this group of players will be able to pass them.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.

>Illusion of difficulty is the very basis of still sticking to the holy trinity idea in MMORPGs long after the original reason for its appearance (extremely poor mob AI in first cRPG games) completely disappeared.

 

No, it's not, not sure where you got that idea from and how can you suggest that existance of "holy trinity" somehow gives people idea that the game is harder than it is. That's pretty hilarious for me.

 

Ah wait, it's good I bothered reading a bit further:

 

>It's a system that's being continued in most MMORPGs for the sole purpose of making it easier for the players, **without them noticing it.**

 

Yes, that's just another baseless claim. Pigeonholing builds/classes into strict roles is such a sneaky way to help people by telling them what they're supposed to do, I'm sure nobody notices it. What are you even talking about?

 

Seriously, where are you getting these silly ideas from? Do you think you're smarter than other players, so you realise that a tank has to tank, DDs need to deal dmg and supports/healers need to support/heal, while the others think they invent something by picking their assigned role? Oof.

Nothing about that gives people idea about bigger complexity or makes the content harder in their minds, because it's absolutely self-explanatory with a blatantly clear purpose of each role.

 

________________

And in case you forgot what this was about and just keep arguing for the sake of arguing: people refuse to take tips from other players because "they don't want help from anyone, they just want the content to be easier so they can solve it", which can't be said about the "hardcore players" (with or without "trinity"), because any self-proclaimed "hardcore" player will gladly grab a solved encounter and start farming it asap, possibly trying to improve the reasults in next attempts.

[yann.1946]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".

> > > > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.

> > > > >

> > > > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.

> > > > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.

> > >

> > > That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".

> > >

> > > While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.

> >

> > We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.

> > If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)

>

> Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.

> And btw I'm not sure what's the point of this response. In my eyes it's basically: "I can answer to what you said, but I won't, so let me know if you want me to answer". Am I supposed to ask you for the links (hopefully related to gw2) or something? How about next time you want to answer to what I wrote, you just... do it?

>

> Also adding "of course most top end players of a game know these things" makes me feel you didn't understand the post I've answered to and subsequentially didn't understand my response. But I can be wrong because for some reason you've decided not to include anything you're talking about so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to throw blind guesses here or not.

 

I'm sorry , the reason i asked is because actually responding in detail will get quite of topic.

 

Examples where games lie on purpose is:

-in some shooters the first shot of the ai will always miss.

-In strategy games the probabilities that are written are probably lies because most people are bad at statistics, and interpret a 90 percent as a 100 percent.

-In gw2 you can land on air while doing a jumping puzzle because the platform is slightly bigger then the visual suggests.

-Here someone wo talks about gamedesign and why it happens:

 

The thing is, i don't agree specifically that the trinity is an example of this. But i merely wanted to point out that lying to players to make them feel stronger/competent is standard practice procedure. Whether it get used a lot is something i don't know thoug

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Seriously, where are you getting these silly ideas from? Do you think you're smarter than other players, so you realise that a tank has to tank, DDs need to deal dmg and supports/healers need to support/heal, while the others think they invent something by picking their assigned role? Oof.

No. I realize that the tank being able to do its job is only because devs intentionally dumb the ai of the opponents down to make this approach possible.

The original trinity appeared when players noticed that enemies in computer games were so dumb it could be easily exploited by letting it attack the target _players_ picked, while leaving all other players safe. Notice though, that AI scripting has become better and better, to the level where such exploiting should no longer be possible. It is only possible because devs specifically allow it

 

> Nothing about that gives people idea about bigger complexity or makes the content harder in their minds, because it's absolutely self-explanatory with a blatantly clear purpose of each role.

Oh, indeed, it seems so explanatory that people do not notice that with any decent AI (way below of what the games are currently capable of) It _shouldn't work at all_.

There's a reason why holy trinity never worked in pen & paper RPGs or in PvP modes - it's because the opponents need to be extremely dumb for this approach to work.

 

> And in case you forgot what this was about and just keep arguing for the sake of arguing: people refuse to take tips from other players because "they don't want help from anyone, they just want the content to be easier so they can solve it", which can't be said about the "hardcore players" (with or without "trinity"), because any self-proclaimed "hardcore" player will gladly grab a solved encounter and start farming it asap, possibly trying to improve the reasults in next attempts.

Many casuals will gladly get a help from others. They just don't want to be told how to play. Incidentally, a lot of "self-proclaimed hardcores" don't want to be told how to play either, because they think they are already good enough _they_ should be telling others how to play, not the other way around. Even if they're wrong about something.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > > > > > See... There was the time that I've thought just like you: that people complaining about "hard content" just can't "solve it" and need help. But there were already threads **even about (pof) story bosses** where multiple people linked videos with a few different tactics and easly defeating the boss on undergeared characters (because some people complained they need to farm top/optimal gear for that), but most of the answers boiled down to "**I don't want you to help me, I want it to be easier**".

> > > > > > > And -I think- this is the main problem here: they don't want to be better, they don't want to learn the game. They want the game to play itself and give them rewards. That's just insane to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone is like this and plenty of players probably just need some help getting into the content, but judging by absolute lack of answers or even "thumb ups" I assume this thread doesn't exactly consist of those people.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I dont think this is quite it. If they wanted the game to be easier they would simply follow the brain dead tactics I showcase for an easy victory. Most of the game does not require a high level of execution. Its almost always a knowledge check in the form of good builds and preparation. They want to be deluded into thinking they are clever because they "solved" the encounter themselves so what they want are simple encounters that don't expose their lack of knowledge.

> > > > > The same is actually true about so called _hardcore_ players as well. MMORPG games have a looong tradition of giving players an _illusion_ of difficulty. I mean, the whole holy trinity concept is exactly this - persuading the players that they are so clever, while preventing them from noticing that in order for their tactics to work boss ai needs to be dumbed down to that tactics level first.

> > > >

> > > > That's a pretty weird claim to make, just because people use available tactics in a game that are obviously balanced around its content (or the other way around, w/e) doesn't mean they pretend they're smarter than they are and aren't aware of the limitations or the game design itself. I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on tbh. A lot of the players are perfectly fine with copying the efficient tactics someone else comes up with first while still think about themselves as "so called hardcore players".

> > > >

> > > > While I can agree with Shikaru (because it's based on actual messages wrote by actual players on this forum), I seriously don't know where your claim comes from. For now it seems absolutely wrong and baseless for vast majority of cases.

> > >

> > > We"ll its not such a weird claim to make. Theirs been quite a few times where different games lie to the player to make it seem harder then it is.

> > > If you want i can send a link with some examples. (ofcourse most top end players of a game know these things)

> >

> > Pretty sure that if you read exactly what he wrote, it's a weird, too generalized and mostly baseless claim to make.

> > And btw I'm not sure what's the point of this response. In my eyes it's basically: "I can answer to what you said, but I won't, so let me know if you want me to answer". Am I supposed to ask you for the links (hopefully related to gw2) or something? How about next time you want to answer to what I wrote, you just... do it?

> >

> > Also adding "of course most top end players of a game know these things" makes me feel you didn't understand the post I've answered to and subsequentially didn't understand my response. But I can be wrong because for some reason you've decided not to include anything you're talking about so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to throw blind guesses here or not.

>

> I'm sorry , the reason i asked is because actually responding in detail will get quite of topic.

 

Makes sense, thanks for explaining, I was pretty confused about this before ;p

 

> Examples where games lie on purpose is:

> -in some shooters the first shot of the ai will always miss.

> -In strategy games the probabilities that are written are probably lies because most people are bad at statistics, and interpret a 90 percent as a 100 percent.

> -In gw2 you can land on air while doing a jumping puzzle because the platform is slightly bigger then the visual suggests.

> -Here someone wo talks about gamedesign and why it happens: [vid]

 

 

Ok, you've provided some examples of games "cheating in favor of the player" -for the most part in other games/genres- and in a lot of cases it seems to either:

a) compensate for the way we can see the world, at which point... It's just makes it possible to actually play the game in the first place

b) straight up giving the player a chance to not focus on what they're doing I guess? -like the example of the enemies intentionally shooting at random direction, for me that's just garbage/buggy (even if done intentionally at which point it's not exactly a "bug", I get it) ai and it immediately turns me away from the game. Implementing something like that into the game doesn't "fool me into thinking I'm better than I am", it rather makes me think I've been "fooled into buying this pile of garbage without properly working ai" and you can be sure that if I can, I'll refund.

 

> The thing is, i don't agree specifically that the trinity is an example of this. But i merely wanted to point out that lying to players to make them feel stronger/competent is standard practice procedure. Whether it get used a lot is something i don't know thoug

 

I think that if you re-read my post you've quoted (and the post before that, to which I was directing my answer), you'll see that I didn't argue against "general possibilities of lying to the player in any game", but rather said specifically that his claim about hardcore players being "fooled into thinking they're smarter than they are (*and whatnot*)" based on the concept of trinity is a weird claim.

Now I understand you've wanted to comment on the broader meaning of what was said, but... yeah, I still think what he said is nonsense :p

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Black Wolf.7348" said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the easy mode being a stairway through which more players will enter the hard mode. You're right that this is not going to work (or at least not to the degree where it would be worth the resources spent). The real gain for raids is somewhere else. You need to stop thinking about hard mode population only, but start to think about the impact of increasing the _total_ raid population (with easy mode included). If a lot of people get interested in easy mode, then the overall raid population would increase, and that might persuade devs that raids are worth spending resources on, after all. And this would benefit hard mode as well.

> >

> > Strikes, by the way, can't do that - because they are a separate mode. The bigger population in strikes can at best persuade devs to spend more resources on _strikes_. It won't persuade them to get back to making more raids.

> >

>

> So that's the fundamental difference between strikes and easy mode ?

>

> What would an easy mode achieve that strikes did not ?

 

An easy mode means people of differing skill levels playing raids. It means a larger raid population. This might, in turn, mean more resources allocated to raids.

[Gnomeo.1493]

For the casuals like me :) i want ez mode for raids :))

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Seriously, where are you getting these silly ideas from? Do you think you're smarter than other players, so you realise that a tank has to tank, DDs need to deal dmg and supports/healers need to support/heal, while the others think they invent something by picking their assigned role? Oof.

> No. I realize that the tank being able to do its job is only because devs intentionally dumb the ai of the opponents down to make this approach possible.

 

And your average player also understands that pretty well, let alone a "hardcore" one. I already wrote about that in my initial response: you think people feel smarter than they are because they're using mechanics available to them balanced around the content they're using them for. That's just wrong and implies people think numbers and tactics in the games are straight up random. Which is stupid, naive and pretty far from how a "hardcore player" looks at the game. What you're repeating over and over again is baseless and no matter how many more times you'll repeat it (apparently no matter how I answer to it), it won't magically become the truth.

 

> The original trinity appeared when players noticed that enemies in computer games were so dumb it could be easily exploited by letting it attack the target _players_ picked, while leaving all other players safe. Notice though, that AI scripting has become better and better, to the level where such exploiting should no longer be possible.

 

I'll need some sources on that claim. Also no matter what the beginning of the trinity was, it doesn't change anything about the fact why it's still in use today. It also doesn't change anything about your initial baseless statement.

Yes, the boss can ""randomize"" the target (or do whatever the devs want it to do without the trinity) but it doesn't make the encounter any more enjoyable. Everyone understands that and it doesn't mean anything in light of your initial claim about "hardcore players thinking they're smarter than they are because they're properly -mostly, outside of the buggy encounters- utilizing the mechanics given them in the game by the devs". Again, any "hardcore player" understands what happens in the game is framed by the creators, your statement is as weird and baseless as it was x posts before.

 

>It is only possible because devs specifically allow it

 

I don't see what makes you think I'm the one that needs to be told this and how does this change anything I wrote before?

 

> > Nothing about that gives people idea about bigger complexity or makes the content harder in their minds, because it's absolutely self-explanatory with a blatantly clear purpose of each role.

> Oh, indeed, it seems so explanatory that people do not notice that with any decent AI (way below of what the games are currently capable of) It _shouldn't work at all_.

 

:lol:

That's hilarious that you can think that. People understand that there are mechanics that are made by devs and that they have tools given to them specifically by the same devs to make those encounters consistently "solvable". Saying "it's so explanatory that people do not notice that..." is hilarious. And wrong.

 

> There's a reason why holy trinity never worked in pen & paper RPGs or in PvP modes - it's because the opponents need to be extremely dumb for this approach to work.

 

Pen and paper rpgs have absolutely nothing to do with this game or the way raids work, not sure why you're bringing it up here. Pocket sand?

(also it could easly work if someone wanted that, but still -that's just irrelevant)

 

> > And in case you forgot what this was about and just keep arguing for the sake of arguing: people refuse to take tips from other players because "they don't want help from anyone, they just want the content to be easier so they can solve it", which can't be said about the "hardcore players" (with or without "trinity"), because any self-proclaimed "hardcore" player will gladly grab a solved encounter and start farming it asap, possibly trying to improve the reasults in next attempts.

> Many casuals will gladly get a help from others.

 

Never said "casuals in general don't want help from others". Why are you even writing this to me -in this context or any other?

 

>They just don't want to be told how to play.

 

If the player came to the forum and said that the story boss is too hard, requires too expensive/top gear for no reason and its mechanics make no sense and make the encounter unwinnable, after which they receive multiple answers with tips how to solve the encounter and understand the mechanics they clearly fail at understanding, later include multiple videos with multiple tactics to pick from, including cheese strats and straight up smacking the boss in the face with autoattacks while undergeared to show them that they just need to understand how the game works to which said player answers "they don't want help, they just want it to be easier", then... What are you even arguing here? If they don't want to be helped, don't want to learn, don't want to understand anything but just want to sit on the forum and complain that the game is unplayable when it's not, then who and how are you even trying to defend them by claiming "they just don't want to be told how to play"?

 

...and how does this have anything to do with your silly claim about hardcore players being the same, when those "hardcore players" just happily grab a "solved raid" and start farming away? For real, what are you even talking about in your posts?

 

>Incidentally, a lot of "self-proclaimed hardcores" don't want to be told how to play either, because they think they are already good enough _they_ should be telling others how to play, not the other way around. Even if they're wrong about something.

 

LOL no. Show me some of those "hardcore" players that refuse to use outside sources in form of sites describing mechanics, builds, tactics and whatever else you can come up with and then try complaining that the encounter is too hard and should be nerfed because they can't solve it. How many of the players do you think stand behind those outside sources and how many players actually use them instead of crying that they're not the ones providing the information?

And how can anyone complain about """people telling them how to play""" (a.k.a explaining the mechanics or showing how to pass the encounter) when they came to the forum throwing insane claims about the boss being impossible to kill or w/e? What are you even trying to compare here? :lol: