Raid difficulty and challenge motes

[Feanor.2358]

> @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

 

This would defeat the purpose of the raids. We already had dungeons for that, what we lacked - and what raids were designed as - is actually challenging content.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

>

> I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

 

This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

 

[Fatalyz.7168]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

> >

> > I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

>

> This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

>

 

I understand that. Her comment wasn't about whether the story was interesting, it was about main story shouldn't be hidden behind raids, that is what I was replying to.

 

Interesting or not, side story is still side story, and that is perfectly acceptable to be exclusionary.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

>

> This would defeat the purpose of the raids. We already had dungeons for that, what we lacked - and what raids were designed as - is actually challenging content.

 

The point is that they could still accomplish that purpose if some kind of story mode existed. No one is advocating for the removal of challenge.

 

In fact, I (and others) believe that they could accomplish that goal even better if story or easier modes existed. As it stands, raid fights cannot be tuned to an extreme challenge or there truly would be nearly no one in them. Multiple difficulty modes allow for bringing greater challenge into the game. So, if the purpose is actual challenging content (which raids don't really provide to many raiders in their current form, btw), then the first logical step is the implementation of tiered difficulties/story motes.

[Blaeys.3102]

> @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > > > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

> > >

> > > I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

> >

> > This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

> >

>

> I understand that. Her comment wasn't about whether the story was interesting, it was about main story shouldn't be hidden behind raids, that is what I was replying to.

>

> Interesting or not, side story is still side story.

 

Again, if the story involves events/lore/etc inTyria or the mists, it is not a side story in a game like this (MMOs are not designed around linear storytelling). Whether or not the story is interesting is the only thing that matters.

[Fatalyz.7168]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > > > > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

> > > >

> > > > I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

> > >

> > > This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

> > >

> >

> > I understand that. Her comment wasn't about whether the story was interesting, it was about main story shouldn't be hidden behind raids, that is what I was replying to.

> >

> > Interesting or not, side story is still side story.

>

> Again, if the story involves events/lore/etc inTyria or the mists, it is not a side story in a game like this (MMOs are not designed around linear storytelling). Whether or not the story is interesting is the only thing that matters.

 

If the story does not involve the Commander, it is not considered a main story point in this game. For example, they could have just put an NPC in the Priory area, that mentioned that they found Saul, for all of the effect that it has on the Commander (PC). Instead, they provided a way for the player to experience that content, and because of that challenge/difficulty, is able to effectively tell that story. Without that challenge/difficulty, the effect of the story is neutered. That same story you hold on a pedestal.

 

Edit: To add, with BoP and it's inclusion of Challenge Motes, they essentially said, "Here is your Story Mode."

[Blaeys.3102]

> @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > > > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > > > > > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

> > > >

> > > > This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I understand that. Her comment wasn't about whether the story was interesting, it was about main story shouldn't be hidden behind raids, that is what I was replying to.

> > >

> > > Interesting or not, side story is still side story.

> >

> > Again, if the story involves events/lore/etc inTyria or the mists, it is not a side story in a game like this (MMOs are not designed around linear storytelling). Whether or not the story is interesting is the only thing that matters.

>

> If the story does not involve the Commander, it is not considered a main story point in this game. For example, they could have just put an NPC in the Priory area, that mentioned that they found Saul, for all of the effect that it has on the Commander (PC). Instead, they provided a way for the player to experience that content, and because of that challenge/difficulty, is able to effectively tell that story. Without that challenge/difficulty, the effect of the story is neutered. That same story you hold on a pedestal.

 

 

If the story doesn't involve the commander/pact/whatever directly, you may not consider it a main story point, but that isn't true of most players.

 

MMOs are not designed for linear story telling. It really is that simple. They are about creating a full and living world in which the player interacts and influences events. The ideas of "main" and "side" stories (which are both semantic and subjective terms, btw) don't really have meaning here.

 

As to the challenge being part of the story, I can agree. However, because of the huge disparity between builds and playstyles, along with varied levels of player skill, challenge itself is subjective. Reality is, most harder core raiders don't find the current raid content very challenging. If anything, multiple difficulty modes (including some kind of story mode) would allow the developers to add actual challenge into the raid encounters.

 

[Fatalyz.7168]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > > > > > @Fatalyz.7168 said:

> > > > > > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > > > > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> > > > > > > I do not think any main story should be gated so over 70 percent or more of the player base will never view it really a design flaw on a nets part.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree with you, main story should not be gated. However, raids in this game are side story's (meaning that they are not telling the story of the PC). There are some places where NPC's will reference that you were in the Raid, if you completed the content, but if you haven't, it won't reference you, the PC, being there.

> > > > >

> > > > > This point you keep bringing up - not referencing the player directly unless they chose to go there - is completely irrelevant to whether or not the story is something players would be interested in experiencing. A couple of sentences of changed dialogue do not justify segmenting story the way they did.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I understand that. Her comment wasn't about whether the story was interesting, it was about main story shouldn't be hidden behind raids, that is what I was replying to.

> > > >

> > > > Interesting or not, side story is still side story.

> > >

> > > Again, if the story involves events/lore/etc inTyria or the mists, it is not a side story in a game like this (MMOs are not designed around linear storytelling). Whether or not the story is interesting is the only thing that matters.

> >

> > If the story does not involve the Commander, it is not considered a main story point in this game. For example, they could have just put an NPC in the Priory area, that mentioned that they found Saul, for all of the effect that it has on the Commander (PC). Instead, they provided a way for the player to experience that content, and because of that challenge/difficulty, is able to effectively tell that story. Without that challenge/difficulty, the effect of the story is neutered. That same story you hold on a pedestal.

>

>

> If the story doesn't involve the commander/pact/whatever directly, you may not consider it a main story point, but that isn't true of most players.

>

> MMOs are not designed for linear story telling. It really is that simple. They are about creating a full and living world in which the player interacts and influences events. The ideas of "main" and "side" stories (which are both semantic and subjective terms, btw) don't really have meaning here.

>

> As to the challenge being part of the story, I can agree. However, because of the huge disparity between builds and playstyles, along with varied levels of player skill, challenge itself is subjective. Reality is, most harder core raiders don't find the current raid content very challenging. If anything, multiple difficulty modes (including some kind of story mode) would allow the developers to add actual challenge into the raid encounters.

>

 

Even if it isn't true for any players, it is true of the way that Anet is telling the story.

 

I would say that people that use off builds/playstyles could have a more difficult time, especifically if there is no one in the party able to handle specific mechanics, ie - no boon strip on VG, or condi damage. But the different fights should encourage adjusting your build to the fight. It doesn't have to be the most efficient, but so long as you can play it and handle the mechanics, you'll be fine. And in those instances, the effect of that story will be more impactful, because of the greater challenge overcome. Where as, people who go for the Most Efficient Tactics Available route, potentially have it easier and thus a less impactful effect of the story.

 

As for the different difficulty modes, I don't argue that it would allow them to tune to a greater degree, but that would require more time or people, of which they shouldn't receive either. I wouldn't want to have to wait more than 9 months between raid releases, nor should they hire more people for raids, those should go towards other areas of the game, WvW, PvP, or even expac or LW teams. Help those teams be able to produce more content, at a higher quality.

[Feanor.2358]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> >

> > This would defeat the purpose of the raids. We already had dungeons for that, what we lacked - and what raids were designed as - is actually challenging content.

>

> The point is that they could still accomplish that purpose if some kind of story mode existed. No one is advocating for the removal of challenge.

>

> In fact, I (and others) believe that they could accomplish that goal even better if story or easier modes existed. As it stands, raid fights cannot be tuned to an extreme challenge or there truly would be nearly no one in them. Multiple difficulty modes allow for bringing greater challenge into the game. So, if the purpose is actual challenging content (which raids don't really provide to many raiders in their current form, btw), then the first logical step is the implementation of tiered difficulties/story motes.

 

If raids fail to provide challenge, the first logical step would be implementing motes that increase the challenge rather than ones which reduce it. I wonder what they should be called? Challenge motes maybe? Hmm, wait, where have I heard that...?

 

Sarcasm aside, story mode would overlap difficulty with already existing content. That's the difference. You can't expect raids to be leaps and bounds more difficult than anything else in the game just so they target that small part of the raiders which find no challenge at all in current raids. Content difficulty should be tiered, like it actually is. Raids are a step higher than what we had before and raid CMs are a step higher yet. It's all good.

[Fatalyz.7168]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > @SaraGreen.2345 said:

> > > I would have have liked to see slightly easier raid difficulty so players can get the story and lore and enjoy encounters in random lfg setting.

> >

> > This would defeat the purpose of the raids. We already had dungeons for that, what we lacked - and what raids were designed as - is actually challenging content.

>

> The point is that they could still accomplish that purpose if some kind of story mode existed. No one is advocating for the removal of challenge.

>

> In fact, I (and others) believe that they could accomplish that goal even better if story or easier modes existed. As it stands, raid fights cannot be tuned to an extreme challenge or there truly would be nearly no one in them. Multiple difficulty modes allow for bringing greater challenge into the game. So, if the purpose is actual challenging content (which raids don't really provide to many raiders in their current form, btw), then the first logical step is the implementation of tiered difficulties/story motes.

 

Raids are only supposed to be challenging content, within the scope of the game, and they are. Not sure why the current 2 Fractal CM's are more mechanically challenging, but there it is.

[Murdock.6547]

This horse is not a horse anymore.

It's been beaten to death, revived by necromancers, then beaten again so many times it far from resembles the original beast; it is some sort of undead monstrosity and the only reason anyone even thinks this is the same horse is simply due to the fact that so many have an unrelenting hate for it and feel obligated to beat it once more.

 

Regardless of anyone's stance of if the horse should eat hay or eat barley is not even relevant anymore as the beating of the horse during this nonsensical debate always turns into personal attacks and false accusations. "You can't beat this horse because you lack the skill to do so, practice by beating a wooden statue of a horse first."

"I shouldn't need to practice beating a dead horse, as I've been beating other things and it should translate over just fine."

 

Both sides are equally foolish. The horse is dead. It was finally, officially pronounced dead and now the developers of this horse will continue to breed horses of the same (or hopefully better) quality. And I for one look forwards to that.

But this particular horse? Named "raid difficulty"? It's dead. Like SOOOO dead.

[Sykper.6583]

> @Murdock.6547 said:

> This horse is not a horse anymore.

> It's been beaten to death, revived by necromancers, then beaten again so many times it far from resembles the original beast; it is some sort of undead monstrosity and the only reason anyone even thinks this is the same horse is simply due to the fact that so many have an unrelenting hate for it and feel obligated to beat it once more.

>

> Regardless of anyone's stance of if the horse should eat hay or eat barley is not even relevant anymore as the beating of the horse during this nonsensical debate always turns into personal attacks and false accusations. "You can't beat this horse because you lack the skill to do so, practice by beating a wooden statue of a horse first."

> "I shouldn't need to practice beating a dead horse, as I've been beating other things and it should translate over just fine."

>

> Both sides are equally foolish. The horse is dead. It was finally, officially pronounced dead and now the developers of this horse will continue to breed horses of the same (or hopefully better) quality. And I for one look forwards to that.

> But this particular horse? Named "raid difficulty"? It's dead. Like SOOOO dead.

 

What Murdock is really saying is that in PoF we are literally going to fight an Undead Beaten Horse as a Raid boss.

 

Also fitting since we are getting mounts in the expansion.

[Murdock.6547]

I would die laughing tbh.

[Fluffy.1932]

I started raiding because I wanted to experience it. My group spent 4 months wiping to VG. The reason I kept coming back wasn't because of the challenge, it was because I had to beat VG in order to experience the rest of the raid. In other words the story of the raid was the hook that got me into raiding. If there had been a story mode available, I probably would have just done that and called it a day. Then I wouldn't have gotten into this content that is now my favorite content in the game.

 

Not having a story mode is critical because experiencing the story is one of the main hooks that gets new people to start raiding. Since raids are more difficult than the other content of this game, there tends to be a lot of growing pains when developing the skills necessary to raid successfully, and so there needs to be additional motivation besides loot that is attractive to people who currently don't raid. Story is the best of this because it simultaneously improves the experience for everyone already raiding as well.

 

The way Anet has implemented story in raids has been great. They have been side stories that don't directly affect the main plot, but are tied close enough to it that people are still interested in what's going on. It has been about as good as you can get with making people interested enough to try raiding when they might not otherwise, and not making people that don't raid miss important details.

[mortrialus.3062]

This is a debate I've been hearing since Vanilla World of Warcraft added Molten Core. I heard these arguments after Dark Souls became a smash success. And now I'm hearing it with GW2. Easy mode in raids would absolutely be unhealthy for GW2.

 

I've only started raiding in GW2 relatively recently. I joined a guild that advertised raid training and I really wanted that experience. For a long time, I didn't have a real guild outside of a couple of real life friends I played with. GW2 was for a long time a game that was actually pretty easy to mostly play on your own. And when Raids came out and I started getting really into the game again I really wanted to be a dedicated raider. About a couple of months ago I pulled the trigger and joined a raiding guild and I’ve never been happier playing the game.

 

And what makes raids appealing is the fact that they are exclusionary. More specifically, what makes raids appealing to me is the fact that **I** can be (And _was_ for quite sometime) excluded from them because of the difficulty. I couldn't just solo my way through them or even reliably pug it. It was the same thing with Raiding in World of Warcraft. It was a very similar thing with Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls. The fact that there is real risk that I can’t see the content is what makes the content exciting. It creates a sense of danger, anticipation, and a sense of accomplishment that you just can’t get otherwise. Even if there was an easy mode, and I never ever touched the easy mode and just did the hardmode, the fact that it's possible for me to hit a switch and see all the content removes all the tension and danger and fear of failure.

 

I’ve never cared to get the achievement Migraine. Because I’ve already killed Mordremoth. I already know how that fight goes down. There’s just no interest in doing it for me. I’ve seen it all before. If Raids had an easy mode that I could have steamrolled, I would have 0 interest in doing them anymore. And I certainly wouldn’t have joined a raiding guild and become a part of a community. I have more more friends and people I play with in game because the exclusionary nature of raids forced me to finally stop being a loner and find and join other like minded players.

 

Regarding the story, Deimos isn’t that interesting of a character because of his dialogue or his character arc. He’s interesting explicitly because he is incredibly difficulty and the mechanics of his fight. He’s incredibly threatening and extremely intimidating because he’s hard. If there was an easy mode players could just steamroll or a story mode then Deimos losing a huge part of his character. Without that, there’s little more to him than being a weird demon we’ve never seen before that’s mean to Saul. That’s it. Matthias would be a weird crazy mage and that's it. Xera would be a Mesmer you fight in a trippy arena and that's it. They'd be like Zhaitan or the Primordus / Balthazar encounter in Flashpoint. Cinematic fights with interesting things visually, but ultimately huge jokes. Their difficulty, the time players have had to spend mastering their fights, have actually manage to give these raid characters actual character. I'm always going to remember Matthias and Slothazor and Xera and Deimos. I couldn't tell you any of the named white mantle boss's names from Living World Season 3 aside from Caudecus himself. Because the difficulty makes the story and writing shine.

 

It was the same thing with WoW and Dark Souls. Ragnaros was only interesting and iconic because he was hard and it took so much work and group effort to fight and defeat him(Over at least a month if the guild is starting from scratch like mine did to get someone the reputation with the Hydraxian Waterlords high enough to fight him). Aside from that he was just a really, really large fire elemental . C’thun was only interesting because of how difficult of a fight he was . Ornstein and Smough are only interesting because of how difficult they are. If Dark Souls wasn’t hard, people would blow through that game in literally two or three hours their first playthrough and it wouldn’t leave anywhere near the impact it had on players and everyone would have forgotten about it.

 

This might seem like a bit of a tangent, but I don't WvW. It's just not a game type I find interesting and will only dip my toe into it to get a Gift of Battle for a legendary weapon and that's it. And if WvW ever someday gets an update that adds new interesting things to it I'm not going to be upset about it. I think WvWers should have the coolest and most fun experience even if I don't ever set foot in a WvW map ever again. Warbringer is the coolest looking legendary backpack, but I'm never going to get it. And I'm fine with that. I don't want or need an easy mode that lets me immediately get the back pack, or lets me never have to fight other players or removing the possibility of dying while playing that content. If they add a new WvW map that's the coolest zone ever added to the game I'm not going to complain "Oh why can't they add a PvE version of this map. It's so unfair that WvW players get to run around this cool new zone that I don't get to enjoy because I don't WvW."

 

It seems like you have one section of the nonraiding crowd who wouldn't be happy unless raids were nothing more than wireframe hallways with fights against wireframe monsters with 0 value outside of their exact fight mechanics because "If all you want is hard content then that's all it should be." . Raids should be the coolest possible content they can possibly be in every regard, fights, zones, music and story. I think that should be true of every aspect of the game.

 

Another problem is that some players just don't want to put in the effort and try. You have people who are incredibly offended at the idea that you should use food and utilities in raids or fractals (And don't get me started on the people who get pissed that you ask that you use pots for Fractals) and consider the suggestion you telling them how to play and take away their free will and individuality. They look at things like meta builds as elitists telling them how to play, instead of the community and theory crafters coming together to try and help everyone see the content as easily as possible. People spend time theorycrafting, analyzing and testing stat sigil and rune combinations, crunching numbers, practicing rotations, doing practical runs of the raids for testing, and writing detailed guides on builds and strategies are for each class during each boss because they're _trying to help you_. They want you to kill the bosses and see the content. Not because they arbitrarily decided that warriors should use this playstyle and that all people must use this playstyle all the time because if you don't you're stupid and my build must be the most popular.

 

Guilds are always advertising that they provide raid training. You'll see raid training groups in LFG all the time. If you put in the effort to have a good build, to be able to pull off good rotations and provide good damage, if you show up to the group with food, you'll have a much better time.

 

But a lot of players don't think the game should be challenging period. That they shouldn't have to worry about actually being good at the game or putting up an effort for anything. They want everything to be like the world boss train where it's this big sloosh of nothing and no effort and easy loot. These people shouldn't be listened to catered to.

 

Easy mode would be a disastrous mistake. It would drain all of the appeal and mystique of raiding and fracture the community built up around them. I'm really happy with Arenanet's response on this.

[Feanor.2358]

Can't upvote this enough. Very well said and very true.

[IonoI.3956]

_Any story in raids should be accessible in some playable (important word) format to players of many different skill levels. This transcends the hard/easy argument - it is simply a matter of presenting the same story to all players interested in it._

 

it is. I see multiple people in lfg advertising cleared instances that anyone can explore. Also a big part of the reason why the raid story is so interesting is because the bosses are tough, which adds weight and value to the story. If they make them easier then it will water down the story.

 

Raids are playable by many different skill levels. there is a huge gap between the best players and what it takes to simple be in a raiding team that gets kills. Are you saying any new player should be able to do raids as soon as they make their account before even doing dungeons and fractals? The raid lore is just side stories that aren't really important for the living world main story.

 

_The primary purpose of raids should always be to provide challenging content to those players looking for it._

 

they seem to be doing pretty well with that so far. There is room for more since many groups easily do all challenge modes, but it does take practice so it's good enough i think.

 

_There needs to be a way that players who are not interested in conforming to a meta or spending hours min-maxing can still enjoy raids without having to add to their frustration levels._

 

There is. just join a guild or join one of the many pugs who don't care what you run as long as you do enough to not be dead weight.

 

_Even at their lowest difficulty level, raids should provide a challenge above what you would find in a T1 or T2 fractal (the first three encounters in wing 4 feel about right, imo)._

 

That's what the purpose of dungeons and fractals is - to be the mid level pve that new players need to build up to raid tier. Think of raids as part of the pve game mode, not as a game mode on their own. It's better if they focus on making completely new raids instead of spending more time on existing ones to make easy modes.

 

So seems like everything you're asking for is already in the game :)

[mortrialus.3062]

> @Lonami.2987 said:

> Without difficulty modes, we'll never get a really hard boss that can't be facerolled by hardcores. Let that sink in.

 

This comment makes me laugh. I don't think anyone is asking for content that is literally impossible for anyone to be good at. What people who like raids like is that they are hard to learn, but with effort and practice you can become good at them

[Kal Bhairav.6589]

My personal experience is not too good with finding group as well. When i started raid, I joined training guild. We trained on VG week in.. week out. Every week there were newer people joining the guild and I was running training with them. When I asked when do i get to run with kill group, their answer was when people are ready.

I ran whole month like that and still not 1 kill. Couldn't join any other kill group 'coz i had no LI. Eventually, i left the guild.

Now, i can kill all the bosses just fine, got my legendary armor. I even tank all of them but I didn't learn from anyone but youtube. I just lied about exp and started sneaking into group and start getting into group for kill.

I know, this sucks but I have no real friend who plays this game and nobody got months to learn 1 boss. At the end, this is just a game.

I do not agree on making raid easier because it actually already is. Everything is scripted, how hard can that be. LOL

But, group finding (lfg) definitely needs improvement. my 2 censt :)

don't flame me. English is not my primary language.

[Demeth.5816]

> @mortrialus.3062 said:

> > @Lonami.2987 said:

> > Without difficulty modes, we'll never get a really hard boss that can't be facerolled by hardcores. Let that sink in.

>

> This comment makes me laugh. I don't think anyone is asking for content that is literally impossible for anyone to be good at. What people who like raids like is that they are hard to learn, but with effort and practice you can become good at them

 

Seing hardcore raiders saying that its too easy when you master the encounters makes me laugh. Its perfect the way it is. Hard when you learn, "easy" when mastered

[Jahroots.6791]

> @mortrialus.3062 said:

> But a lot of players don't think the game should be challenging period. That they shouldn't have to worry about actually being good at the game or putting up an effort for anything. They want everything to be like the world boss train where it's this big sloosh of nothing and no effort and easy loot. These people shouldn't be listened to catered to.

>

> Easy mode would be a disastrous mistake. It would drain all of the appeal and mystique of raiding and fracture the community built up around them. I'm really happy with Arenanet's response on this.

 

You were going really well up until this point. It's needless hyperbole.

 

There's players who are old. Some are disabled. Others have manky hardware and internet connections. Maybe all three. It's very tempting to dismiss every complaint as coming from a place of laziness, but in truth most people want to play at a level of difficulty that is challenging and/or engaging _for them_.

 

It's hard to accept this when you've reached a certain level of skill, but for a lot of players just beating Bloomhunger on T3 is a phenomenal task. Raids are simply beyond them, and at the current level of difficulty, will always be. And I think PVE group content is simply too sparse to exclude so many.

 

 

 

[Sykper.6583]

> @Jahroots.6791 said:

> > @mortrialus.3062 said:

> > But a lot of players don't think the game should be challenging period. That they shouldn't have to worry about actually being good at the game or putting up an effort for anything. They want everything to be like the world boss train where it's this big sloosh of nothing and no effort and easy loot. These people shouldn't be listened to catered to.

> >

> > Easy mode would be a disastrous mistake. It would drain all of the appeal and mystique of raiding and fracture the community built up around them. I'm really happy with Arenanet's response on this.

>

> You were going really well up until this point. It's needless hyperbole.

>

> There's players who are old. Some are disabled. Others have manky hardware and internet connections. Maybe all three. It's very tempting to dismiss every complaint as coming from a place of laziness, but in truth most people want to play at a level of difficulty that is challenging and/or engaging _for them_.

>

> It's hard to accept this when you've reached a certain level of skill, but for a lot of players just beating Bloomhunger on T3 is a phenomenal task. Raids are simply beyond them, and at the current level of difficulty, will always be. And I think PVE group content is simply too sparse to exclude so many.

>

>

>

 

Don't even start with the victimization game with 'old' and 'disabled' players. Even excluding the counter-point that Arenanet shouldn't need to cater to the 'least capable' players who struggle the hardest with GW2 simply leveling up, there are several instances of said players that overcome whatever ails them to clear the content. I don't even have to look that hard into Youtube to find a video of a Gamer playing CSGO competently with one hand since his other arm is paralyzed.

 

The only thing stopping would-be raiders from raiding is willpower and patience. The willpower to keep trying encounters, and the patience to accept failure can happen, that a kill might not happen that day.

[Jahroots.6791]

Mmm-hmm. There's also several instances where people simply stopped playing. But that ain't even the point, man.

 

Truthfully, whats important is that we shouldn't discount complaints about raid difficulty as lazy players who want everything for no effort. It's too dismissive and hyperbolic. It's a new forum. Let's at least try to have civil, objective discussions without the snarkiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rennie.6750]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @Rennie.6750 said:

> > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > @Rennie.6750 said:

> > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > > > @Rennie.6750 said:

> > > > > > > @meeflak.9714 said:

> > > > > > > > @Rennie.6750 said:

> > > > > > > > > @meeflak.9714 said:

> > > > > > > > > Arenanet had stated from the start what they plan to do with raids. They were made to give the community something challenging and engaging to enjoy. It has been said that they don't want to take time to make different tiers because it will take away from thier time they have to design new engaging raid content. Why do you expect them to cater to your requests? Why do they have to take time away from development of new mechanics, for those that want to play it? Your asking them to put a stop on their goals to cater to you

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Do raider's have to run fractals .. no... Do they if they want to experience the lore ? Or get ad infinitum? Yes

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Do raider's have to play PvP? No . Do they have to if they want Ascension ? Yes

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Do raider's have to play WvW? No. Do they have to if they want the the armor and back piece? Yes

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Does the community have to raid? No . Do they if they want to experience the lore and get legendary armor ? Yes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No one Is forced to do anything in this game. If a player wants something from a certain aspect of the game. It's their responsibility to seek it out... I'll never play WvW again I'm sure. Imnot upset I'll never get their specific skins. Those players put the into that game mode to receive it's payouts. That's all raids ask of you . If you want to be included. Then include yourself, but don't expect arenanet to cater to you because you don't want to go through with getting into the content the way it was designed

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Edit: why do I get so many thumbs down for explaining it the way I see it.. I'm sorry if you don't like my stance, we disagree, sure. But don't you think it's best to just see the magic In raids and give them a shot the way arenanet intended it?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Oh yeah why should they cater to people who pay their wages and keep the publisher happy with a steady revenue! How dare they requesting their money's worth!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The thing is, raids are expensive content to develop, yet the raiding population in games never exceeds 2-3% for the highest difficulties. It's often in the 1-2% in fact, so everyone is funding this farce and nobody gets to play it except a few chosen ones

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > *No one gets to play it except the people that want to play it. ... Fixed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then you should read this thread more carefully. There are many people willing to play raids, just not in their current format. Again they're paying for it so why would an arbitrary decisions like "muh vision for raidz" would be anything but an insult or some sort of mockery?

> > > > >

> > > > > No, in fact they aren't willing to play raids. If they were willing, they would. They are willing to get the rewards, but that's not the same thing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also the payment argument is plain weak. I'm paying for this game as well and I'm not willing to touch PvP with a 10-foot pole. Does it mean ANet should just remove PvP from the game immediately? Or should they introduce "story mode" perhaps? Just because you're paying for the game doesn't mean ALL of its features should be catering to your own personal tastes. It's not possible and it's not necessary. I'm getting plenty of value for my money and so are the people who complain about their own choice not to play raids. As evidenced by the fact they are still around and play the game. And are invested enough in it to come on the forums and complain.

> > > >

> > > > There is no need for a story mode pvp, you can get all of the pvp rewards without ever killing another player at all and be the worst player in the world. But anyway this is a really moot argument. Not playing raids isn't a choice for many, it's a fact. The requirements are absurdly high; pvp lets you queue with a lvl 3 character and you get the full experience/rewards from it. There's also an automated matchmaking which means that the lfg pvp groups have to deal with the people they get not their ideal party comp, that helps a lot making pvp much more accessible. Yes you will kitten and fail initially but with time you'll learn and get better, because no party can say "no, you're not joining". On the other hand, raiding groups are too selective for most players to ever experience raids without begging guild members to teach you the thing. And if you're not in a guild, you're SOL.

> > >

> > > You're even *starting* your reply with talk about rewards. Like I said, it's not the same thing. The complaining people aren't concerned about playing the content, they're concerned about getting the rewards. And they're using the payment as an argument? Appalling.

> > >

> > > And no, it *is* a choice. Each and every one of us has the very same option to click on the party interface, create a raid squad and enter the instance. What you can't do as easily is get the rewards. But let me tell you a secret - it wasn't easy for us active raiders either. I was in the same situation, however I *was* willing to raid. So I did. I sought guilds, I trained and I sucked. Then I kept training and I sucked less. Then I began pugging and eventually I found my place in a guild static. Everyone can do it. It doesn't take any special skill. It only takes time and effort. And whether or not you want to invest them in raiding is a choice which is entirely up to you. Both answers are equally valid. Complaining about the answer you gave isn't.

> >

> > Well it's simple, any content without meaningful rewards will not be played. Look, if it's easier to get stuff in open world content than in possible easy raids then adding easier raids won't solve any of the current issues and nobody will play them more than once for the scenery/experience. There needs to be some progression system, but the early steps HAVE to be rewarding, something that Anet's current team doesn't understand at all. Look at early fractals, rewards feel like an insult, when the original team got it perfectly, with dungeon tokens in abundance and easily obtained decent but not BiS gear.

>

> Adding easier raids won't solve any "issues" in any case. If anything, what you have in mind will only create actual issues, like making their original, intended difficulty meaningless. Why would you risk failing if you could slack and get the rewards anyway in less time? Mind you, you're not asking for some symbolic rewards here, you feel insulted by the fact you don't get in the faceroll low-tier fractals rewards comparable to the higher tiers. You don't want to enjoy content, you want to get every reward the game has to offer with as little effort as possible. You shouldn't. It would make the game boring very, very fast.

 

That's not my point, my point is that there needs to be rewards in order for things to be played. Rewards like dungeons make t1 fractals completely worthless except as a boring and uninteresting slow grind for progression. And please, difficulty is completely irrelevant. I got more ascendant recipes playing two meta events in HoT than in a month of fractals (And I still have half my chest keys available...), and I get more money running around clicking on resources nodes than from playing quite a lot of "endgame" content, so in this game, difficulty is already completely irrelevant in terms of rewards. Denying that there is no difficulty/reward balance in this game is delusional, as the devs very much embraces this kind of design already. Seriously. I got an ascended backpacks clicking on shit for 4-5h tops this week (5 days, 1h a day collecting pearls and doing hearts) in siren's landing. All this talk about difficulty is really silly.

[Feanor.2358]

> @Jahroots.6791 said:

> > @mortrialus.3062 said:

> > But a lot of players don't think the game should be challenging period. That they shouldn't have to worry about actually being good at the game or putting up an effort for anything. They want everything to be like the world boss train where it's this big sloosh of nothing and no effort and easy loot. These people shouldn't be listened to catered to.

> >

> > Easy mode would be a disastrous mistake. It would drain all of the appeal and mystique of raiding and fracture the community built up around them. I'm really happy with Arenanet's response on this.

>

> You were going really well up until this point. It's needless hyperbole.

>

> There's players who are old. Some are disabled. Others have manky hardware and internet connections. Maybe all three. It's very tempting to dismiss every complaint as coming from a place of laziness, but in truth most people want to play at a level of difficulty that is challenging and/or engaging _for them_.

 

See, that's the thing. If you want a lower difficulty, *you can already play it*. Dungeons, low-tier fractals, take your pick. If you want a higher difficulty, there's only raids. If it was only about the challenge, these topics wouldn't exist. It's about the rewards. And wanting the same rewards with less to no effort is exactly laziness. And greed.