Do raids need easy/normal/hard difficulty mode? [merged]

[Lonami.2987]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > Maybe most people do actually join training guilds instead of baseless discussions on the forum?

> >

> > I very much recommend people who *want* to join training guilds do so, but for those who don't, that suggestion offers nothing to them.

>

> The statement from ArenaNet, the popularity of training guilds and the fact that the raid LFG is on of the most active of the entire game highly suggest that you are part of a very small minority. Not the raider.

 

Less and less people play raids every day, because there's just no incentives after you get Envoy's Herald, and the wait times keep getting more and more horrendous.

 

I don't know what parallel rainbow universe do you live on.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > ArenaNet is still happy with the current implementation of raids. So the raiding population can't be as small as you want it to be. In the current state of the game, yes you have zero chance to change anything.

> >You protest against the current situation can we say you also protest too much?

>

> I'm fighting to change the status quo.

>

> You insist that I stand no chance whatsoever of succeeding.

>

> and yet you, and others, spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to convince me to stop?

>

> Why, if my quest is so utterly futile? And don't even pretend that it's somehow for my own sake, you at least know better than that.

 

That's what an elitist looks like. Putting more effort in preventing others from having fun, than having fun himself.

 

That, or they're all raid sellers making money by selling collections and achievements.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ze Dos Cavalos.6132" said:

> > A raid Dev should come here and say they will never make raid easy mode so this discussion finish once and for all :expressionless:

> They won't do that. They might say they don't have any plans to do that _at the moment_, but they won't commit to saying the plans will definitely won't change. Because plans do change sometimes. Raids are an example of that.

> The devs know that. The raiders arguing against these ideas know that as well (which is why they're so vehement in the defence of their own side instead of just ignoring the threads, which they'd likely do if they really thought this train of suggestions has zero chance of being heard).

>

 

Ringing a bell there.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Eramonster.2718" said:

> > > You made your point by now. But keep an open mind to accept the opinions of others (just like how you're thinking others are dimissing your idea, you've been dismissing theirs? Imo)

> >

> > It's not a 1:1 thing though. I listen to what people say, I just continue to disagree with the positions they take. The fact of the matter is, they already have what they want, and I'm still fighting for mine. They can go away and, if they are right, they will continue to have everything they want here and nothing that they don't. If I go away, I'll continue to not have what I believe is important here. When ANet adds an easy mode raid that satisfies the conditions discussed, *then* I can agree to disagree and move on.

>

> And this is why nobody agrees with you. You don't discuss conditions. You want to dictate them. For your profit, not for the community.

 

Project any harder and we could use your head for a movie theater.

 

Next thing you know, mode-supporters are the ones wanting to keep other people out.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Sykper.6583" said:

> > > > That’s not really a compromise. If my two kids were fighting over a toy, the compromise wouldn’t be that one gets it and the other doesn’t. The compromise would be taking turns using the same toy.

> > >

> > > And yet giving the toy to one of the kids is exactly what you want. :)

> >

> > No that's not quite right. In this instance it'll be like breaking the toy in half and that's how it'll be shared.

> No. In this case it would be buying a new toy for the other kid so they both can have fun. Except the first kid then starts complaining that the second toy is too similar to his one, and he doesn't want that because he wants to be the only one with it.

 

That's the truth they don't want to admit.

 

Implementing an easy mode would not affect the normal mode in any negative way. 25 pages later, there's no sound argument against it', it's all about "development time" (worth enough for the replay value), "exclusivity" (just give no rewards on easy mode), and "population" (no one would play easy mode once they learn, just like no one touches fractals tier 1 once they level up past it).

 

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > The problem isn't that Raids are too hard. The problem is the catch 22 situation that occurs when you want to start Raiding: You need to already have LI to be allowed into a squad to earn your very first LI.

> > >

> > > Adress this situation and Raids are perfectly fine.

> > You can't address it. The encounters are hard enough that people pugging them will want to ensure as much as possible they are grouped with people that don't need to learn the encounter. Training is so annoying and takes so much time, that people doing normal weekly clears will never want to break new players in. Better kick such a person, and find someone better. And you can't change that attitude.

> >

> > So, there's only two ways to address it: either make the encounter easy enough being too strict with group forming is just a waste of time, or create another avenue of getting the experience that is widely recognized.

>

> Again it is _not_ about friggin' difficulty but _accessability_.

>

>

 

Different modes would keep newbies and hardcores separated, and groups would not need to ask for LIs, just like no one asks for KP in fractals t4, only in hard modes.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > It already takes too long to make raids for a single difficulty

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Not an issue. The easy mode raids should take a tiny fraction of the time to generate as the existing raids, because they share 95% of the work, and they would be a decrease in difficulty rather than in increase. They should not slow the development of new raids by even a single patch cycle.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You're **SO** wrong.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How so?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You're vastly underestimating the amount of work needed, and as a result you're also underestimating the impact on the raid release schedule as well. Rebalancing and the needed mechanic changes and tweaks related to them, followed by the testing and bugfixes... it won't take as much time as developing a new wing of the same size and complexity, but it will be in the same ballpark.

> > > > >

> > > > > I really don't see how.

> > > >

> > > > I can see that. Still doesn't make you any less wrong.

> > >

> > > You didn't address any of the rest, so I assume you agree with it. That's fair.

> >

> > That's rather presumptuous of you.

>

> Be that as may, if you can't refute any of the points made, we have to agree on them.

 

Nope, I most certainly don't *have* to agree on anything.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> >Well their are some mechanics which translate badly for example the red guardian, the floor at sloth etc

>

> >Which is why people keep bringing these things in the picture.

>

> Yes, but so far they've all be easily enough manageable. The Slathasor encounter has a number of potential ways to soften it. The most direct method would be to reduce the amount of damage the poison can do, so that while avoiding it is preferable, it would be possible to "stand in the fire" and still handle the encounter (but again, a group *intending* to train would want to play it straight). Other optional elements would include removing the "nauseated" buff so that a single player could do the entire thing (but maybe leave on a cosmetic version with no actual effect so that training groups could track their progress), and perhaps make it so that player slublings are auto-rezzed (so that they know that they "died," but without harming the attempt). Also, without an enrage timer, players could take more time and care with the encounter. The goal would be to *allow* players to play through the same mechanics as hard mode, to be *aware* whether they are doing it right or not (if they know what to look for), but to not absolutely *require* that they nail most of them for the encounter to succeed.

>

> >-bugfixing: ever heard of the saying programming is 5% coding and 95% bugfixing. Remember when introducing AT broke raidrewards?

>

> The amount of bugs *should* be relatively negligible, since in most cases it would either be turning *off* potentially bug-inducing abilities, or just tweaking the number on a functional ability. Obviously bugs can still occur, but I think compared to most content they should be fairly minimal.

>

> >-we have no Idea how long each of the Seven steps takes and how much happens parallel to eachother.

>

> Again though, the fist five steps would be entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since they're already done. The last two, yeah, it's possible that they could take a while, I just highly doubt it based on what we do know. Occam's Razor.

 

I'm burying my face in my hands right now. Figuratively and literally. "The amount of bugs *should* be negligible"? Oh my... As a rule of thumb, nothing is ever negligible or easy in game development. It often seems so, to outside people, because they imagine small, contained changes. What they fail to take into account is a game is a vast, complex system of interlocked sub-systems. There is very rarely such thing as a "contained" change. A change of the magnitude you're talking about cannot really be contained. It will almost certainly have unpredicted interaction with other sub-systems which "shouldn't" be affected at all. If I had to do that, I'd assume it *will* create lots of bugs and it *will* require lots of testing. It's safer to plan it like this instead of relying on wishful thinking and delaying the release with weeks when the things *do* blow in your face. Not to mention finding the proper balance between "too challenging for non-raiders" and "complete faceroll" *will* require a lot of tweaking and even more testing.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> >Well their are some mechanics which translate badly for example the red guardian, the floor at sloth etc

>

> >Which is why people keep bringing these things in the picture.

>

> Yes, but so far they've all be easily enough manageable. The Slathasor encounter has a number of potential ways to soften it. The most direct method would be to reduce the amount of damage the poison can do, so that while avoiding it is preferable, it would be possible to "stand in the fire" and still handle the encounter (but again, a group *intending* to train would want to play it straight). Other optional elements would include removing the "nauseated" buff so that a single player could do the entire thing (but maybe leave on a cosmetic version with no actual effect so that training groups could track their progress), and perhaps make it so that player slublings are auto-rezzed (so that they know that they "died," but without harming the attempt). Also, without an enrage timer, players could take more time and care with the encounter. The goal would be to *allow* players to play through the same mechanics as hard mode, to be *aware* whether they are doing it right or not (if they know what to look for), but to not absolutely *require* that they nail most of them for the encounter to succeed.

 

So now we have atleast 3 opions to choose from and no clearity which is the best. See how this planning part van take a while.

 

 

> >-bugfixing: ever heard of the saying programming is 5% coding and 95% bugfixing. Remember when introducing AT broke raidrewards?

>

> The amount of bugs *should* be relatively negligible, since in most cases it would either be turning *off* potentially bug-inducing abilities, or just tweaking the number on a functional ability. Obviously bugs can still occur, but I think compared to most content they should be fairly minimal.

>

 

In contrast we have increased the buginducing possibiltys and they show up at ridicolous places

 

> >-we have no Idea how long each of the Seven steps takes and how much happens parallel to eachother.

>

> Again though, the fist five steps would be entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since they're already done. The last two, yeah, it's possible that they could take a while, I just highly doubt it based on what we do know. Occam's Razor.

 

My point was let say we have 7 things nessecary for the code Lets denote them A to G. It takes 20 days to finish. How can you deduce the time for all components and because some things run parallel one thing could take 20 days.

 

I'm sure it would take less time but not a little amount of time.

 

Please don't envoke occam's razor Just because. You think you're correct

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>Nope, I most certainly don't have to agree on anything.

 

You concede by default it's ok.

 

>I'm burying my face in my hands right now. Figuratively and literally. "The amount of bugs should be negligible"? Oh my... As a rule of thumb, nothing is ever negligible or easy in game development. It often seems so, to outside people, because they imagine small, contained changes. What they fail to take into account is a game is a vast, complex system of interlocked sub-systems. There is very rarely such thing as a "contained" change.

 

I'm well aware of the perils of bug-chasing, I do it daily, but my point is, this is largely not changes to *systems,* like adding entirely new mechanics, and mostly just a tweak of existing properties. If an attack works fine dealing 500 damage per hit then it should work just as well dealing 100 per hit. It's easier to go down than up, too. What you're arguing sounds like a "mysticism" argument, "don't tempt the dark gods of the forest, you never know when they will strike."

 

>Not to mention finding the proper balance between "too challenging for non-raiders" and "complete faceroll" will require a lot of tweaking and even more testing.

 

And again, getting it right on the first try is a lot less vital than with the initial raid releases, because nobody cares too much if they get it wrong. They can fix it in post.

 

 

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> So now we have atleast 3 opions to choose from and no clearity which is the best. See how this planning part van take a while.

 

That took me around ten minutes, half of that double checking what the actual mechanics were, and I have a lot less experience with these systems than the devs would. I'm sure they could put it together within an hour or so of brainstorming per encounter. Also, it would most likely be "all of the above, and then some," rather than "which of the three." This is also something that they could brainstorm openly with the community, since unlike with the actual raid wings there would be no "surprise" element to ruin. Let us know the plan before they spend time actually implementing it, and let us raise concerns.

 

>My point was let say we have 7 things nessecary for the code Lets denote them A to G. It takes 20 days to finish. How can you deduce the time for all components and because some things run parallel one thing could take 20 days.

 

But again, we aren't talking about *creating* new code, or at least we shouldn't be. Most of the changes being discussed would be changing a database entry for a copy of a mob or another type of spawned effect, The database for the default version would read "500," the entry on the copy would be changed to "50." They've have to do that for maybe 20-40 entries per encounter, depending on how they are structured. The heavy lifting of the project would have been done years ago when they first built the encounter. A few of the changes *might* involve unique coding, but I kind of doubt it, especially if they have good content-creation tools in place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Lonami.2987" said:

> Less and less people play raids every day, because there's just no incentives after you get Envoy's Herald, and the wait times keep getting more and more horrendous.

>

> I don't know what parallel rainbow universe do you live on.

 

This statement is the reason why it's very hard to stay calm, friendly and keep this thread in perspective.

 

At first, you have zero - i repeat - zero numbers of such accusations. Secondly, raiders do not stop to play the content because they have 3 armors there's also a ring coming but the more essential reason is that a lot of them have a static group, enjoy the content and come back every week to not only fight bosses but also meet the people. Thirdly for every player leaving raids there are also players getting into them. Again, you have zero indications or proof how the numbers are turning.

It's only your subjective picture and after pugging this and the last week you are totally wrong about the waiting times. I'd rather say squads are still filling faster than a year ago just due to the fact that people got better with encounters and lots of them are able to play more than one class/niche/role so they hop in and play what is needed.

 

I do not comment on the other stuff you wrote but you're better of with stopping hate speech against raids and start to discuss with valid arguments. Otherwise a further discussion with you will be pointless and serves no purpose for anybody here.

 

___

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

> But again, we aren't talking about *creating* new code, or at least we shouldn't be. Most of the changes being discussed would be changing a database entry for a copy of a mob or another type of spawned effect, The database for the default version would read "500," the entry on the copy would be changed to "50." They've have to do that for maybe 20-40 entries per encounter, depending on how they are structured. The heavy lifting of the project would have been done years ago when they first built the encounter. A few of the changes *might* involve unique coding, but I kind of doubt it, especially if they have good content-creation tools in place.

 

Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

 

Sorry, I didn't study informatics in school, I just write game code for a living.

[Sykper.6583]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

>

> Sorry, I didn't study informatics in school, I just write game code for a living.

 

Forgive us if we don't believe you, or any of the OP's statements so far as they are not backed by any solid evidence to the contrary. Naturally I'm not actually asking for you to divulge personal information on the public domain, that's your own decision as well. What I will say is that all devs statements so far, old and new, point to the contrary of how raids are going according to them when compared to this supposed 'reality' the OP has delivered.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Sykper.6583" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > > Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

> >

> > Sorry, I didn't study informatics in school, I just write game code for a living.

>

> Forgive us if we don't believe you, or any of the OP's statements so far as they are not backed by any solid evidence to the contrary. Naturally I'm not actually asking for you to divulge personal information on the public domain, that's your own decision as well. What I will say is that all devs statements so far, old and new, point to the contrary of how raids are going according to them when compared to this supposed 'reality' the OP has delivered.

 

I never claimed to be any *good* at it.

[Lonami.2987]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Lonami.2987" said:

> > Less and less people play raids every day, because there's just no incentives after you get Envoy's Herald, and the wait times keep getting more and more horrendous.

> >

> > I don't know what parallel rainbow universe do you live on.

>

> This statement is the reason why it's very hard to stay calm, friendly and keep this thread in perspective.

>

> At first, you have zero - i repeat - zero numbers of such accusations. Secondly, raiders do not stop to play the content because they have 3 armors there's also a ring coming but the more essential reason is that a lot of them have a static group, enjoy the content and come back every week to not only fight bosses but also meet the people. Thirdly for every player leaving raids there are also players getting into them. Again, you have zero indications or proof how the numbers are turning.

> It's only your subjective picture and after pugging this and the last week you are totally wrong about the waiting times. I'd rather say squads are still filling faster than a year ago just due to the fact that people got better with encounters and lots of them are able to play more than one class/niche/role so they hop in and play what is needed.

>

> I do not comment on the other stuff you wrote but you're better of with stopping hate speech against raids and start to discuss with valid arguments. Otherwise a further discussion with you will be pointless and serves no purpose for anybody here.

 

I have my whole guild, my whole friendlist, and two whole guilds of raid pugging, plus everyone complaining about pugging times in the aerodrome.

 

What else do you need? A certified research by a team of scientists? How blind can you be? My opinion is subjective, but your rainbow world about raids being the perfect child with no population problems is not? Have you even checked the poll numbers in the first page?

 

Hate speech against raids, lol.

 

I guess truth is hate now.

 

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

>

> > But again, we aren't talking about *creating* new code, or at least we shouldn't be. Most of the changes being discussed would be changing a database entry for a copy of a mob or another type of spawned effect, The database for the default version would read "500," the entry on the copy would be changed to "50." They've have to do that for maybe 20-40 entries per encounter, depending on how they are structured. The heavy lifting of the project would have been done years ago when they first built the encounter. A few of the changes *might* involve unique coding, but I kind of doubt it, especially if they have good content-creation tools in place.

>

> Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

 

You don't sound like you have any idea either. Easy mode would work fine by just tweaking some damage numbers here and there. That doesn't even involve programming new behaviors, you just need to modify said values in the monster skill database, which means there wouldn't even be bugs, since no code was touched. The only "problem" you could get here is missing or adding an extra zero to the new numbers, and I trust them enough not to make such a dumb mistake. Not like it would take long to fix it anyway.

 

GW2 isn't programmed in assembly or a console, like what you see at school. In the real world, [game IDEs are a thing, and you should check them out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_integrated_development_environment) before dismissing people with more experience than you, by repeating the same programming memes that have nothing to do with actual reality.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > Let me add one thing about programming times and "just tweaking numbers". Everybody that had at least 1 semester of informatics at university knows that it isn't just converting numbers. How you describe it it is definitely not how software development is going to work.

>

> Sorry, I didn't study informatics in school, I just write game code for a living.

 

Tyi university in Europe is **after** school.

 

> @"Lonami.2987" said:

> I have my whole guild, my whole friendlist, and two whole guilds of raid pugging, plus everyone complaining about pugging times in the aerodrome.

> What else do you need? A certified research by a team of scientists? How blind can you be? My opinion is subjective, but your rainbow world about raids being the perfect child with no population problems is not? Have you even checked the poll numbers in the first page?

 

Yeah, of course. You have no data but very probably devised fairy tales and because you have no valid arguments you start to insult others. Legit course of action.

 

Funny part of your story is: How would an easy mode help your friends/guild mates at all if they cannot find anybody to raid the normal way? And no, we don't need to repeat the same wrong stuff again: Easy modes wouldn't shift more players to the normal mode and no you won't get the same rewards in an easy mode. Your friends would still be in the same situation as before.

 

> You don't sound like you have any idea either. Easy mode would work fine by just tweaking some damage numbers here and there. That doesn't even involve programming new behaviors, you just need to modify said values in the monster skill database, which means there wouldn't even be bugs, since no code was touched. The only "problem" you could get here is missing or adding an extra zero to the new numbers, and I trust them enough not to make such a dumb mistake. Not like it would take long to fix it anyway.

 

Sorry, but that's definitely not how it is working and it was already explained in this thread. The first simple answer about tweaking numbers is that several boss mechanics wouldn't fit together any longer. And that's only one minor problem.

 

> GW2 isn't programmed in assembly or a console, like what you see at school. In the real world, [game IDEs are a thing, and you should check them out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_integrated_development_environment) before dismissing people with more experience than you, by repeating the same programming memes that have nothing to do with actual reality.

 

Oh really, something completely new for me, kek! Btw. I wasn't talking about some school kid programming his first pac man. As I wrote before school != university.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > So now we have atleast 3 opions to choose from and no clearity which is the best. See how this planning part van take a while.

>

> That took me around ten minutes, half of that double checking what the actual mechanics were, and I have a lot less experience with these systems than the devs would. I'm sure they could put it together within an hour or so of brainstorming per encounter. Also, it would most likely be "all of the above, and then some," rather than "which of the three." This is also something that they could brainstorm openly with the community, since unlike with the actual raid wings there would be no "surprise" element to ruin. Let us know the plan before they spend time actually implementing it, and let us raise concerns.

>

 

Wel zure when you actually haven't tought about the precise implimantation.

 

On top of that If you would take all 3 their would be a lot of unique code involved.

 

 

> >My point was let say we have 7 things nessecary for the code Lets denote them A to G. It takes 20 days to finish. How can you deduce the time for all components and because some things run parallel one thing could take 20 days.

>

> But again, we aren't talking about *creating* new code, or at least we shouldn't be. Most of the changes being discussed would be changing a database entry for a copy of a mob or another type of spawned effect, The database for the default version would read "500," the entry on the copy would be changed to "50." They've have to do that for maybe 20-40 entries per encounter, depending on how they are structured. The heavy lifting of the project would have been done years ago when they first built the encounter. A few of the changes *might* involve unique coding, but I kind of doubt it, especially if they have good content-creation tools in place.

>

>

>

I also wasn't talking about the coding nessecarely. More about we can make no logical conclussion about how long every part would take. Yes you're current argumentation has Quite a few flaws

 

You underplay the amount of bugfixes altough we have Quite a few example of unrelated things Breaking eachother.

On top of that you claim it would be easy based on you're Idea but is that the best Idea?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

>Sorry, but that's definitely not how it is working and it was already explained in this thread. The first simple answer about tweaking numbers is that several boss mechanics wouldn't fit together any longer.

 

Such as?

 

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> On top of that If you would take all 3 their would be a lot of unique code involved.

 

I don't *think* so, the way I described it. It would really depend on how their systems are arranged, but if it works anything like how I'd design it, then to implement the changes I described, you would find the entry of how many stacks of poison are applied by the ground mushroom's fields and change that number to a smaller one (or change the duration between applications, or change the damage these poison stacks deal per tick, whichever's easiest and most effective, either way it would be changing a numerical entry). The second would be to cause the copy of the encounter to apply a copy of the "Nauseated" buff, the copy of which would have no actual effect, just the icon and timer, to indicate that in hard mode this player would be unable to transform again. Now, as for auto-rezzing the dead slubling players, that *might* be tricky, but I believe there are already effects like this in the game, and then should be able to slot them into this portion of the game, just cause one of the existing rez effects to proc when a slubling player reaches zero HP.

 

Now again, I'm spitballing things based on outsider knowledge, maybe some of these things are harder than I anticipate, and maybe there are easier options available to them to overcome the same obstacles. They would know that better than I, but what I can't imagine is that there are NO simple solutions to these issues.

 

>You underplay the amount of bugfixes altough we have Quite a few example of unrelated things Breaking eachother.

 

But typically in cases where they *implement* something new, like applying a movement option from one part of the game into a completely different part of the game. I fully admit that the "auto-rezzing" suggestion above would be most likely to cause a bug, but the numerical tweaking really shouldn't have those issues, since the mechanics that define those interactions would be kept intact.

 

>On top of that you claim it would be easy based on you're Idea but is that the best Idea?

 

Probably not, but it's something that would work. If there are better or faster alternatives then great. I'm just saying that it doesn't *have* to get overly complicated. You guys were just arguing that *any* solution would *inevitably* take "way too much time," and I just dispute that would necessarily be the case. I'm fully convinced that a sufficiently simple easy mode would be possible for a tiny fraction of the time it takes them to make original raid content, and that they could manage to budget that time into their schedules without significant delays to the timetables.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> >Sorry, but that's definitely not how it is working and it was already explained in this thread. The first simple answer about tweaking numbers is that several boss mechanics wouldn't fit together any longer.

>

> Such as?

 

You would need to hardlock some mechanics for example at Deimos to not having mechanics laying on top of each other if the damage is at a certain threshold.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> What you're arguing sounds like a "mysticism" argument, "don't tempt the dark gods of the forest, you never know when they will strike."

 

It's just experience. It's almost never *only* tweaking numbers, even if that's the original intent. Somewhere along the passes somebody realizes this just isn't going to be fun, so they change the design here and there. It almost always ends up in writing actual code for it, and it often ends up messing up something seemingly unrelated. Hence, the only sensible thing to do is assume it is going to be a mess and plan for it. Which, in turn, certainly will affect the other releases.

 

I do understand your point though. Long ago, I used to think like this as well. But it is unrealistic. The code base for a game, even for a much smaller game, is a place of constant change, affected by a number of different people, doing very different tasks. The chances that nothing goes awry are extremely slim.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> >Nope, I most certainly don't have to agree on anything.

>

> You concede by default it's ok.

>

> >I'm burying my face in my hands right now. Figuratively and literally. "The amount of bugs should be negligible"? Oh my... As a rule of thumb, nothing is ever negligible or easy in game development. It often seems so, to outside people, because they imagine small, contained changes. What they fail to take into account is a game is a vast, complex system of interlocked sub-systems. There is very rarely such thing as a "contained" change.

>

> I'm well aware of the perils of bug-chasing, I do it daily, but my point is, this is largely not changes to *systems,* like adding entirely new mechanics, and mostly just a tweak of existing properties. If an attack works fine dealing 500 damage per hit then it should work just as well dealing 100 per hit. It's easier to go down than up, too. What you're arguing sounds like a "mysticism" argument, "don't tempt the dark gods of the forest, you never know when they will strike."

>

> >Not to mention finding the proper balance between "too challenging for non-raiders" and "complete faceroll" will require a lot of tweaking and even more testing.

>

> And again, getting it right on the first try is a lot less vital than with the initial raid releases, because nobody cares too much if they get it wrong. They can fix it in post.

>

 

That’s fine. Then perhaps after finishing Raid Wing 10 they can take a break and develop an easy mode. 10 raid wings should keep people busy especially if they decide to put in a LI cap, which is going add it’s own set of problems.

 

 

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> That’s fine. Then perhaps after finishing Raid Wing 10 they can take a break and develop an easy mode. 10 raid wings should keep people busy especially if they decide to put in a LI cap, which is going add it’s own set of problems.

 

I would be fine with that as well although I really don't expect GW2 to see a 7th raid wing and neither a LS7.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

They might do it as a feature of the next expansion, which at least we have a chance of seeing. And as for w10... i don't really expect them to do that much. If they did, it'd still take them 2-3 years minimum, which is way too long. Besides, by that time i'm sure that the raid community would be already in visible decline, and adding more wings would not stop that - quite the opposite (some raiders are already starting to complain about having to do too much bosses, and asking for a cap. Add a few more wings, and burnout will become a really major problem).

[Sephylon.4938]

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

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > That’s fine. Then perhaps after finishing Raid Wing 10 they can take a break and develop an easy mode. 10 raid wings should keep people busy especially if they decide to put in a LI cap, which is going add it’s own set of problems.

>

> I would be fine with that as well although I really don't expect GW2 to see a 7th raid wing and neither a LS7.

>

Yeah I went by the cadence that they were using for reference and it would 3 years. That would also put us in possibly finish season 5 and on expac 4.

 

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> They might do it as a feature of the next expansion, which at least we have a chance of seeing. And as for w10... i don't really expect them to do that much. If they did, it'd still take them 2-3 years minimum, which is way too long. Besides, by that time i'm sure that the raid community would be already in visible decline, and adding more wings would not stop that - quite the opposite (some raiders are already starting to complain about having to do too much bosses, and asking for a cap. Add a few more wings, and burnout will become a really major problem).

 

Also if they don’t add a LI cap, you’ll have some of legendary components for the actual raids finished in a month. If they do then you’ll have people picking and choosing which wings to do, for the fastest and easiest.

[zealex.9410]

Id assume part of why some ppl dont play raids as much as they used to is that the latest raid took 10+months and its already been 6months since then. Not necessarily because they made the armor.

 

 

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > >Nope, I most certainly don't have to agree on anything.

> >

> > You concede by default it's ok.

> >

> > >I'm burying my face in my hands right now. Figuratively and literally. "The amount of bugs should be negligible"? Oh my... As a rule of thumb, nothing is ever negligible or easy in game development. It often seems so, to outside people, because they imagine small, contained changes. What they fail to take into account is a game is a vast, complex system of interlocked sub-systems. There is very rarely such thing as a "contained" change.

> >

> > I'm well aware of the perils of bug-chasing, I do it daily, but my point is, this is largely not changes to *systems,* like adding entirely new mechanics, and mostly just a tweak of existing properties. If an attack works fine dealing 500 damage per hit then it should work just as well dealing 100 per hit. It's easier to go down than up, too. What you're arguing sounds like a "mysticism" argument, "don't tempt the dark gods of the forest, you never know when they will strike."

> >

> > >Not to mention finding the proper balance between "too challenging for non-raiders" and "complete faceroll" will require a lot of tweaking and even more testing.

> >

> > And again, getting it right on the first try is a lot less vital than with the initial raid releases, because nobody cares too much if they get it wrong. They can fix it in post.

> >

>

> That’s fine. Then perhaps after finishing Raid Wing 10 they can take a break and develop an easy mode. 10 raid wings should keep people busy especially if they decide to put in a LI cap, which is going add it’s own set of problems.

>

>

 

Doesnt work like that. Those arent 10 new wings, at that point u will be doing wings 1 to 9 for years so an immense w8 for all the easy modes plus wing 10 would flat out kill the scene.

 

Same thing aplies to fractals and every bit of content in this game, the fact that it looks much doesnt change the fact that ppl have been playing it for years and are bound to get bored of it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > >Sorry, but that's definitely not how it is working and it was already explained in this thread. The first simple answer about tweaking numbers is that several boss mechanics wouldn't fit together any longer.

> >

> > Such as?

>

> You would need to hardlock some mechanics for example at Deimos to not having mechanics laying on top of each other if the damage is at a certain threshold.

 

I'm not sure why exactly. I think handled correctly, the bosses should not phase any faster than the existing bosses. I think the better balance for an easy mode would be that instead of reducing the bosses HP, you'd leave it alone, and just focus on allowing the players to survive better. This gives greater success rates without greatly (if at all) reducing the completion times, which helps to keep them balanced with normal mode in terms of time spent. If anything, the average completion times would be much higher, since players would be more comfortable bringing in tankier gear, and would have less efficient rotations, so probably much lower average DPS.

 

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

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

 

Say whatever you like, I'll respond to it if I have anything to say about it.

 

 

[Blaeys.3102]

> @"Sephylon.4938" said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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