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

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> Devs created the game and determine what content is what, Sorry Raids are PvE can’t deny it no matter how hard you try,

 

Just as WvW is PvP no matter how hard you try. The only reason that you imagine there to be a barrier between WvW and PvP is because they both existed when the game was launched, and the devs *said* there was a difference. Both are still more similar to each other within the "PvP space" than raiding and non-raiding are within the "PvE space."

 

 

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > Devs created the game and determine what content is what, Sorry Raids are PvE can’t deny it no matter how hard you try,

>

> Just as WvW is PvP no matter how hard you try. The only reason that you imagine there to be a barrier between WvW and PvP is because they both existed when the game was launched, and the devs *said* there was a difference. Both are still more similar to each other within the "PvP space" than raiding and non-raiding are within the "PvE space."

>

>

 

There is a huge difference go look at the differences in objectives Rules, Fundamental gameplay differences, etc.

 

WvW is not in anyway shape or form the same as sPvP.

 

And again no matter how hard you try or believe it to be so Raids are PvE in every single sense of the words.

 

I see what the problem is clearly again just because you say something isn’t what it is doesn’t make it true, the Devs and Creators of the game state Raids are PvE

[STIHL.2489]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > > Devs created the game and determine what content is what, Sorry Raids are PvE can’t deny it no matter how hard you try,

> >

> > Just as WvW is PvP no matter how hard you try. The only reason that you imagine there to be a barrier between WvW and PvP is because they both existed when the game was launched, and the devs *said* there was a difference. Both are still more similar to each other within the "PvP space" than raiding and non-raiding are within the "PvE space."

> >

> >

>

> There is a huge difference go look at the differences in objectives Rules, Fundamental gameplay differences, etc.

>

> WvW is not in anyway shape or form the same as sPvP.

>

> And again no matter how hard you try or believe it to be so Raids are PvE in every single sense of the words.

>

> I see what the problem is clearly again just because you say something isn’t what it is doesn’t make it true, the Devs and Creators of the game state Raids are PvE

 

Sure they are PvE, like Killing Yaks is WvW.. it's one.. very.. very.. small little part, that gets way too much attention.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

>WvW is not in anyway shape or form the same as sPvP.

 

WvW is open world PvP in which you can solo or form groups of any size that fits on the map, roaming around, completing events, conquering objectives, and fighting enemies that you come across.

 

sPvP is small group PvP in which you pre-form a part of 5, enter an instance, and fight against a specific challenge (another team of 5), with a pass/fail outcome. You still get a few points for just trying.

 

Open world PvE is open world PvE in which you can solo or form groups of any size that fits on the map, roaming around, completing events, conquering objectives, and fighting enemies that you come across.

 

Raids are small group PvE in which you pre-form a part of 10, enter an instance, and fight against a specific challenge (a boss), with a pass/fail outcome. You still get a few points for just trying.

 

There are differences between all four, but the differences between WvW and sPvP are smaller than the differences between raids and open world PvE.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> >WvW is not in anyway shape or form the same as sPvP.

>

> WvW is open world PvP in which you can solo or form groups of any size that fits on the map, roaming around, completing events, conquering objectives, and fighting enemies that you come across.

>

> sPvP is small group PvP in which you pre-form a part of 5, enter an instance, and fight against a specific challenge (another team of 5), with a pass/fail outcome. You still get a few points for just trying.

>

> Open world PvE is open world PvE in which you can solo or form groups of any size that fits on the map, roaming around, completing events, conquering objectives, and fighting enemies that you come across.

>

> Raids are small group PvE in which you pre-form a part of 10, enter an instance, and fight against a specific challenge (a boss), with a pass/fail outcome. You still get a few points for just trying.

>

> There are differences between all four, but the differences between WvW and sPvP are smaller than the differences between raids and open world PvE.

 

Oh really sPvP so similar to WvW, I can take any armor/Build in WvW and have the exact mirror in WvW right? Can also have all the buffs from WvW in PvP right? The layouts are the same right? Oh so basic gamemode mechanics and design match across the board in both the WvW and Ranked sPvP right? Oh wait they don’t, that’s right.... let’s not get into the fact the are hosted in different Server space abide by almost completely different set of rules, or any of those extremely obvious key differences.

 

But in PvE and Raids there are no differences like that, oh yeah you said it right their Raids are PvE.. so every game mode has a way to get Legendary armors, sPvP has theirs, WvW has their and oh yeah PvE has their way of getting it, remember Raids are PvE no matter what you believe them not to be. Do we have to go over what a Gamemode is?

 

Well anyway have a goodnight I’m heading to sleep!

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

>Oh really sPvP so similar to WvW, I can take any armor/Build in WvW and have the exact mirror in WvW right? Can also have all the buffs from WvW in PvP right? The layouts are the same right? Oh so basic gamemode mechanics and design match across the board in both the WvW and Ranked sPvP right? Oh wait they don’t, that’s right.... let’s not get into the fact the are hosted in different Server space abide by almost completely different set of rules, or any of those extremely obvious key differences.

 

Fundamentally though, you're designing tactics to work against other players. Tactics and builds that work well in raids can be useless when soloing or running open world events. Likewise, the build you use when soloing or running open world events tends to be useless in raids.

 

>But in PvE and Raids there are no differences like that, oh yeah you said it right their Raids are PvE.. so every game mode has a way to get Legendary armors, sPvP has theirs, WvW has their and oh yeah PvE has their way of getting it, remember Raids are PvE no matter what you believe them not to be. Do we have to go over what a Gamemode is?

 

An arbitrary decision about which gameplay is similar to which other gameplay?

 

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> >Oh really sPvP so similar to WvW, I can take any armor/Build in WvW and have the exact mirror in WvW right? Can also have all the buffs from WvW in PvP right? The layouts are the same right? Oh so basic gamemode mechanics and design match across the board in both the WvW and Ranked sPvP right? Oh wait they don’t, that’s right.... let’s not get into the fact the are hosted in different Server space abide by almost completely different set of rules, or any of those extremely obvious key differences.

>

> Fundamentally though, you're designing tactics to work against other players. Tactics and builds that work well in raids can be useless when soloing or running open world events. Likewise, the build you use when soloing or running open world events tends to be useless in raids.

>

That's wrong. All DPS builds work also in open world perfectly fine. Support builds not so much in a solo situation, but that should be clear from the start...

Of course your random open world build won't work in coordinated content. A structured useful build can work.

 

PvP and WvW have completely different stat systems and balancing. A tactic in WvW won't work in PvP as you have less stats and no food that makes most builds work in WvW.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>All DPS builds work also in open world perfectly fine.

 

They tend to be pretty squishy without external buffs and healing. Can't exactly bring PVT gear into a raid.

 

>Support builds not so much in a solo situation, but that should be clear from the start...

 

Obviously, but that's the point, there *is* a distinction in build types, not that it should come as some sort of surprise.

 

>PvP and WvW have completely different stat systems and balancing. A tactic in WvW won't work in PvP as you have less stats and no food that makes most builds work in WvW.

 

Yes, just as much of what works in raids would not work in the field. The gear you use is likely to leave you too easy to kill. Using the same food/traits/utilities/runes might leave you lacking important buffs that support players were meant to provide you. Many elements are *similar*, yes, just as between PvP and WvW you need to learn patterns in enemy movements for when to counterplay their activities, but they are fundamentally more similar than not. The most notable distinction is how PvP has a streamlined gearing system, but really all that does is mimic what the WvW player would be doing, using a simpler UI. Really I think that certain elements of the PvE game could really benefit by shifting to the PvP stat model, but I imagine that would be a complicated change to make at this date.

 

As for "balancing," really there should be more splits between WvW and PvE balancing than there are, and the fact that there aren't has more to do with them just not preparing for it and dragging their feet about what needed to be done, than because the existing state is what's best for either mode. Again, what distinctions exist have a lot more to do with what they were thinking when conceptualizing the game (when raids weren't even a thing), than they are to do with the game they actually ended up with. It's like how a panda and a bear both look a lot alike, even though evolutionary they are very far apart.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >All DPS builds work also in open world perfectly fine.

>

> They tend to be pretty squishy without external buffs and healing. Can't exactly bring PVT gear into a raid.

>

So how exactly do they not work in open world? Because you have to pay attention?

Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

> >Support builds not so much in a solo situation, but that should be clear from the start...

>

> Obviously, but that's the point, there *is* a distinction in build types, not that it should come as some sort of surprise.

>

> >PvP and WvW have completely different stat systems and balancing. A tactic in WvW won't work in PvP as you have less stats and no food that makes most builds work in WvW.

>

> Yes, just as much of what works in raids would not work in the field. The gear you use is likely to leave you too easy to kill. Using the same food/traits/utilities/runes might leave you lacking important buffs that support players were meant to provide you. Many elements are *similar*, yes, just as between PvP and WvW you need to learn patterns in enemy movements for when to counterplay their activities, but they are fundamentally more similar than not. The most notable distinction is how PvP has a streamlined gearing system, but really all that does is mimic what the WvW player would be doing, using a simpler UI. Really I think that certain elements of the PvE game could really benefit by shifting to the PvP stat model, but I imagine that would be a complicated change to make at this date.

>

> As for "balancing," really there should be more splits between WvW and PvE balancing than there are, and the fact that there aren't has more to do with them just not preparing for it and dragging their feet about what needed to be done, than because the existing state is what's best for either mode. Again, what distinctions exist have a lot more to do with what they were thinking when conceptualizing the game (when raids weren't even a thing), than they are to do with the game they actually ended up with. It's like how a panda and a bear both look a lot alike, even though evolutionary they are very far apart.

 

Same goes for open world and raids. Most elements are similiar. Just learn the pattern of mobs and you are fine. Goes for all PvE content. But you prefer to face tank things right?

WvW actually uses mostly a mix of attributes. Something that is not possible in PvP. No they are not even close in builds.

Raids are closer to open world than PvP to WvW.

 

Great pandas are bears. They are pretty close to grizzlies evolutionary.

So raids are PvE and everything is fine?

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

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

> > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

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

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

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

> > > > > > > >Oh really? So if I want a nice company car with all its fuel paid I don't have to apply for a specific job that offers one, I could simply walk to my boss and demand one, on the sole basis that somewhere somebody offers it?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. That has absolutely nothing to do with the example being discussed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Except it is exactly the same. There are set rules for acquiring stuff. You want stuff, you don't like rules, so you want the rules changed. Some ego you have, I'll give you that.

> > > > >

> > > > > And you are not doing the same?

> > > >

> > > > Nope.

> > >

> > > No.. it's what you did.. you didn't like the current content and cried incessantly that it needed to change.. So.. yah.. looks like it's exactly what you did.

> >

> > Let me walk you through the differences.

> >

> > Asking for raids - which by the way I didn't participate in, as I wasn't even actively playing GW2 back then - is asking for new content. This doesn't change any existing rules, it simply asks for the game to expand.

> > Current demands are nothing like that. They don't seek to expand the game as such, they seek to create shortcuts to existing rewards. Wanna know what a fair "easy mode" would be? Collection to get an unique armor skin of ascended quality which is *not* the Envoy one. No LIs, no magnetite shards, no gaething crystals, no guaranteed exotic (remains as possible drop), severely reduced chances for ascended drops, reduced gold per completed encounter. *That* would be expanding the game - although I'd argue about how meaningful it would be - and *that* would be fair. **I haven't seen a single person ask for that**. All I see is "we're OK with reduced rewards, as long as we're able to get everything without the effort required". Shortcuts. Still think it's the same?

>

> Actually you would be wrong.. because I did ask for that.. just Legendary Tier as opposed to Ascended.

>

> In fact, there was a whole series of topics about _Other Paths_ to Legendary Gear, that I think got merged somewhere, maybe even with this one.

>

> And the raiders cried that it would not be fair.

 

Because it wouldn't. You want the same tier of rewards for considerably less effort? Get real.

[Eramonster.2718]

PVT have it uses but it's unsuitable for raid especially for damage dealing roles. 2 reasons why :

 

1) The player with the highest toughness draws the bosses attention for most encounters. Should be avoided unless you're the tank (player incharge of steering the boss's movement)

 

2) There's a time limit; for all the encounters to be met.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

 

See this is why raiders and everyone else have trouble communicating, it's like speaking an entirely different language.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Because it wouldn't. You want the same tier of rewards for considerably less effort? Get real.

 

But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

 

That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

>

> See this is why raiders and everyone else have trouble communicating, it's like speaking an entirely different language.

 

You know why that is? Because raiders are much more experienced. The trouble communicating is because you don't want to listen. We've been there. We've done that. And when we say PVT is just bad, it's because it is. You can convince yourself it "fits your playstyle" or "makes you more comfortable", but the truth is, it's a net loss. You're trading away something useful for something of very little value. How do I know it? Because I've tried it. There was time when I was running cele. There was time when I was running (and advocating the use of) marauder. But I've grown past both. You can use stuff like this as a crutch wheel. But that's all there is to them. If you still find a need to use something like that, you're not ready to raid anyway. Learn how to be efficient, learn to play, then magically everything will seem so much easier. Even the dreaded raids.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

>

> See this is why raiders and everyone else have trouble communicating, it's like speaking an entirely different language.

>

There are many attribute combinations that offer either more tankyness or more damage with almost the same tankyness. Traits offer more defensive options than attributes.

 

So back to your bear comparison. Or do you want to conseal that you (again) brought a completely wrong analogy and showed that your knowledge is pretty limited and you have no idea what are you talking about?

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Because it wouldn't. You want the same tier of rewards for considerably less effort? Get real.

>

> But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

 

It is less effort over over a longer period of time.

[nia.4725]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

>

> That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

 

Yup. For your legen armor (the first one) you will need 150LI.

 

Let's say they make a baby mode of raids where you get 1LI per week. It would take a loooooooooong time to get those 150LI, yeah. A lot more time than in regular raids. But will it be an equal effort?

 

No, not at all. The extended time would be a (bad and unfair) compensation for low effort. Because even if it takes you 5 times more time you will be oneshotting babymode raid bosses, while those who play normal raids will be doing a real effort to play.

 

You really can't say a baby mode would be an equal effort just in a longer time while at the same time you keep repeating that you should able to kill the boss at the first try, without any kind of problem. That isn't an equal effort to actually caring about playing your class well and doing the mechanics the boss have. You want to skip mechanics and at the same time you want to be able to oneshot things without thinking about how to play your class. And you call it equal effort. lol

 

When I play chrono in Slothasor I have to pull the slubbings constantly for my DPS teammates to be able to cleave them down. Arenantes makes a baby Slothasor where slubbings have so low HP that you don't even have to pull them -you kill them with a single attack. If you do that for 10 days and I do regular Slothasor for 5 days, will you be doing the same amount of effort as me and my teammates, just over a longer period of time? No, because effort isn't cumulative. You will be doing less effort even if it takes you more time.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

>

> That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

 

That's factually untrue. It doesn't make it less effort just because you want it to be less effort.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > >Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

> >

> > See this is why raiders and everyone else have trouble communicating, it's like speaking an entirely different language.

>

> You know why that is? Because raiders are much more experienced. The trouble communicating is because you don't want to listen. We've been there. We've done that. And when we say PVT is just bad, it's because it is. You can convince yourself it "fits your playstyle" or "makes you more comfortable", but the truth is, it's a net loss. You're trading away something useful for something of very little value. How do I know it? Because I've tried it. There was time when I was running cele. There was time when I was running (and advocating the use of) marauder. But I've grown past both. You can use stuff like this as a crutch wheel. But that's all there is to them. If you still find a need to use something like that, you're not ready to raid anyway. Learn how to be efficient, learn to play, then magically everything will seem so much easier. Even the dreaded raids.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> So back to your bear comparison. Or do you want to conseal that you (again) brought a completely wrong analogy and showed that your knowledge is pretty limited and you have no idea what are you talking about?

 

I confused pandas with koalas (or red pandas and great pandas, or ostriches and emus, whatever), I'm sorry for any distress this error may have caused you, it was purely unintentional. I was a little busy at the time.

 

>It is less effort over over a longer period of time.

 

Less effort per *unit* of time, more effort *over* time. Same or greater *total* effort to reach the goal.

 

 

 

> @"nia.4725" said:

>No, not at all. The extended time would be a (bad and unfair) compensation for low effort. Because even if it takes you 5 times more time you will be oneshotting babymode raid bosses, while those who play normal raids will be doing a real effort to play.

 

Again, nobody is suggesting a mode where you could one-shot the bosses. The bosses would still take as long, or more. Vale Guardian should still take most teams ten, maybe even twenty minutes to clear, assuming no failures (which would be more rare, but still possible). It would still be play time and effort, just less intense focus.

 

When you attempt to demean other players by saying things like "baby mode," or "one-shotting bosses" or "facerolling content," etc., you're only demeaning yourself. Sad.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

Lets say they make easymode that can be cleard on first try with every compositiob and every build (with some thought in them). That means no boons, banners, ea, spotter, spirits and no heals and cc. Also no rotations.

Now if you take meta group you will be 10 times faster. That means either the bosses takes 20 minutes for random group and 2 for meta. Or it is 5 minutes for random and then 30 sec for meta.if i count correctly its 10 minutes forall raid bosees. Even 1 li is too generous.

[nia.4725]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> Lets say they make easymode that can be cleard on first try with every compositiob and every build (with some thought in them). That means no boons, banners, ea, spotter, spirits and no heals and cc. Also no rotations.

> Now if you take meta group you will be 10 times faster. That means either the bosses takes 20 minutes for random group and 2 for meta. Or it is 5 minutes for random and then 30 sec for meta.if i count correctly its 10 minutes forall raid bosees. Even 1 li is too generous.

 

And even then they will complain that they get little rewards for such a long time spent raiding. They will even complain about how much time it takes to do a fullclear.

 

Anyway, I'm close to my limit. Talking to this person is like trying to talk to Soulless Horror. SH is an empty body, it has no soul, no mind, she only smashes her hammer in hopes to hit you.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

> >

> > That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

>

> That's factually untrue. It doesn't make it less effort just because you want it to be less effort.

>

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > >Yes because PVT is just bad. It doesn't deal damage and is not tanky compared to other things like ministrel. It brings nothing to the table in PvE. It is also bad in open world.

> > >

> > > See this is why raiders and everyone else have trouble communicating, it's like speaking an entirely different language.

> >

> > You know why that is? Because raiders are much more experienced. The trouble communicating is because you don't want to listen. We've been there. We've done that. And when we say PVT is just bad, it's because it is. You can convince yourself it "fits your playstyle" or "makes you more comfortable", but the truth is, it's a net loss. You're trading away something useful for something of very little value. How do I know it? Because I've tried it. There was time when I was running cele. There was time when I was running (and advocating the use of) marauder. But I've grown past both. You can use stuff like this as a crutch wheel. But that's all there is to them. If you still find a need to use something like that, you're not ready to raid anyway. Learn how to be efficient, learn to play, then magically everything will seem so much easier. Even the dreaded raids.

>

> Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > So back to your bear comparison. Or do you want to conseal that you (again) brought a completely wrong analogy and showed that your knowledge is pretty limited and you have no idea what are you talking about?

>

> I confused pandas with koalas (or red pandas and great pandas, or ostriches and emus, whatever), I'm sorry for any distress this error may have caused you, it was purely unintentional. I was a little busy at the time.

>

Koalas don't look like bears... Also their name is Koala, not Koala bear.

Red pandas got their name when people thought they were part of the Procyonids (small bears) and live in Asia, also they have partly bear DNA.

The only part valid comparison here are Ostrich and Emu and even they are actually related but not that close.

 

> >It is less effort over over a longer period of time.

>

> Less effort per *unit* of time, more effort *over* time. Same or greater *total* effort to reach the goal.

>

No. Transporting less and lighter bricks per tour doesn't equal more effort for the same count of bricks.

>

>

> > @"nia.4725" said:

> >No, not at all. The extended time would be a (bad and unfair) compensation for low effort. Because even if it takes you 5 times more time you will be oneshotting babymode raid bosses, while those who play normal raids will be doing a real effort to play.

>

> Again, nobody is suggesting a mode where you could one-shot the bosses. The bosses would still take as long, or more. Vale Guardian should still take most teams ten, maybe even twenty minutes to clear, assuming no failures (which would be more rare, but still possible). It would still be play time and effort, just less intense focus.

>

> When you attempt to demean other players by saying things like "baby mode," or "one-shotting bosses" or "facerolling content," etc., you're only demeaning yourself. Sad.

 

You demand a mode were failing is only possible if you do everything wrong that you can do wrong. Yes that is facerolling content and demanding a mode where you can one-shot everything.

 

One-Shotting bosses means you go in and kill it without or very little knowledge on your first try. This is exactly what you want. Time to kill doesn't matter.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

> >

> > That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

>

> That's factually untrue. It doesn't make it less effort just because you want it to be less effort.

 

It's not about what I what, it's about what it is. You want a version of the raids with essentially *everything* that requires effort removed. Learning the encounters, removed. Challenge, removed. No amount of time can make this equal in effort to the real deal, plain and simple. There's no effort in that. Any finite number times zero equals zero.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> Lets say they make easymode that can be cleard on first try with every compositiob and every build (with some thought in them). That means no boons, banners, ea, spotter, spirits and no heals and cc. Also no rotations.

 

I've said it *should* be completed first try *most* of the time. I don't think it should be quite so lax that it guarantees a victory every time, it should just be like most instanced content in the game, where if at least a few people basically know what's up (even second hand) and you're basically good enough at the game to have gotten that far, then you *should* beat it on the first try. Clearly if every player is deliberately poorly put together, has no clue which end of their keyboard should be facing up, or makes zero attempt beyond turning on auto attack and getting a sandwich, then the attempt should fail, I'm *assuming* a minimum level of average competency and effort when I say that it *should* complete most of the time.

 

>Now if you take meta group you will be 10 times faster. That means either the bosses takes 20 minutes for random group and 2 for meta. Or it is 5 minutes for random and then 30 sec for meta.if i count correctly its 10 minutes forall raid bosees. Even 1 li is too generous.

 

Maybe, but if they were a meta group they would only be making a few LI per week, when they could be making 3-4 times as much by doing the harder mode. Ideally they could figure out a way to balance the two a bit closer, so that the extra DPS that a meta group could bring would be less important to the duration of the fight than it would be in hard mode. Like maybe just make it so that the bosses have much less HP, but much higher defense, so everyone, regardless of build, is doing chip damage against it the entire time. That way, a "terrible" team would take ten minutes to wear down his HP, but also a meta team would take 10 minutes, since they'd be dealing the same effective damage. The only advantage the meta team would have is that they would be more efficient at avoiding attacks and thus spend less time recovering from them.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>Koalas don't look like bears... Also their name is Koala, not Koala bear.

 

It may be a regional thing. where I grew up, koala were often called "koala bears," because they do look a bit like bears (stubby faced, round ears). More like stuffed bears than real ones, but enough that the moniker stuck. But as you're aware, biologically they are very different.

 

>Red pandas got their name when people thought they were part of the Procyonids (small bears) and live in Asia, also they have partly bear DNA.

 

Mostly it's because their markings and general shape are similar to Pandas, aside from the tail.

 

>The only part valid comparison here are Ostrich and Emu and even they are actually related but not that close.

 

I mean they're both birds, but they're not even in the same order. Might point was, things can look very similar, even in some cases *be* very similar, while being very distinct under the hood.

 

>No. Transporting less and lighter bricks per tour doesn't equal more effort for the same count of bricks.

 

Again with you and your "lighter bricks," I still don't get why they have to be both less *and* lighter for you. The analogy was *less* of the *same* bricks, making the *load* each time lighter. That's all that's needed to make the analogy fit. So if you carry 10 bricks 100 times, it takes five times as many trips as if you carry 50 bricks 20 times, and each *trip* does certainly take less effort, and would deserve to be paid less, but at the end of the process, both of you ended up transporting the exact same 1000 bricks, and deserve to wind up with the exact same compensation.

 

>You demand a mode were failing is only possible if you do everything wrong that you can do wrong. Yes that is facerolling content and demanding a mode where you can one-shot everything.

 

Nope. Libel.

 

>One-Shotting bosses means you go in and kill it without or very little knowledge on your first try.

 

No, one-shotting bosses means you go in, press an attack button, and the boss dies to that single shot. I'm not sure what the term is for what you're intending to mean.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

> > > > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

> > >

> > > That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

> >

> > That's factually untrue. It doesn't make it less effort just because you want it to be less effort.

>

> It's not about what I what, it's about what it is. You want a version of the raids with essentially *everything* that requires effort removed. Learning the encounters, removed. Challenge, removed. No amount of time can make this equal in effort to the real deal, plain and simple. There's no effort in that. Any finite number times zero equals zero.

 

It's not about what I what, it's about what it is. You want a version of the raids with essentially everything that requires effort removed. Learning the encounters, removed. Challenge, removed. No amount of time can make this equal in effort to the real deal, plain and simple. There's no effort in that. Any finite number times zero equals zero.

 

And yet a million times one is a million. However much you belittle the effort that would be needed to complete the run, it *would* take a positive amount of effort. Less effort per run than the current raids, indisputably, but nowhere near "zero," and therefore, it does deserve a fair fraction of the same rewards per attempt, and the opportunity for those fractional shares to eventually add up tot he same potential rewards.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> And yet a million times one is a million. However much you belittle the effort that would be needed to complete the run, it *would* take a positive amount of effort. Less effort per run than the current raids, indisputably, but nowhere near "zero," and therefore, it does deserve a fair fraction of the same rewards per attempt, and the opportunity for those fractional shares to eventually add up tot he same potential rewards.

 

I've said what the fair fraction is. Collection for an unique armor skin of ascended quality. No LIs, no raid currencies, reduced changes for ascended and exotics, reduced gold rewards. That would be the fair fraction, courtesy of the differences in the effort required. You cannot bypass all the *actual* effort required - learning the mechanics of the fight, figuring out your role in dealing with them and getting good enough in said role - and want the same rewards. It just cannot happen.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> > Lets say they make easymode that can be cleard on first try with every compositiob and every build (with some thought in them). That means no boons, banners, ea, spotter, spirits and no heals and cc. Also no rotations.

>

> I've said it *should* be completed first try *most* of the time. I don't think it should be quite so lax that it guarantees a victory every time, it should just be like most instanced content in the game, where if at least a few people basically know what's up (even second hand) and you're basically good enough at the game to have gotten that far, then you *should* beat it on the first try. Clearly if every player is deliberately poorly put together, has no clue which end of their keyboard should be facing up, or makes zero attempt beyond turning on auto attack and getting a sandwich, then the attempt should fail, I'm *assuming* a minimum level of average competency and effort when I say that it *should* complete most of the time.

>

> >Now if you take meta group you will be 10 times faster. That means either the bosses takes 20 minutes for random group and 2 for meta. Or it is 5 minutes for random and then 30 sec for meta.if i count correctly its 10 minutes forall raid bosees. Even 1 li is too generous.

>

> Maybe, but if they were a meta group they would only be making a few LI per week, when they could be making 3-4 times as much by doing the harder mode. Ideally they could figure out a way to balance the two a bit closer, so that the extra DPS that a meta group could bring would be less important to the duration of the fight than it would be in hard mode. Like maybe just make it so that the bosses have much less HP, but much higher defense, so everyone, regardless of build, is doing chip damage against it the entire time. That way, a "terrible" team would take ten minutes to wear down his HP, but also a meta team would take 10 minutes, since they'd be dealing the same effective damage. The only advantage the meta team would have is that they would be more efficient at avoiding attacks and thus spend less time recovering from them.

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >Koalas don't look like bears... Also their name is Koala, not Koala bear.

>

> It may be a regional thing. where I grew up, koala were often called "koala bears," because they do look a bit like bears (stubby faced, round ears). More like stuffed bears than real ones, but enough that the moniker stuck. But as you're aware, biologically they are very different.

>

> >Red pandas got their name when people thought they were part of the Procyonids (small bears) and live in Asia, also they have partly bear DNA.

>

> Mostly it's because their markings and general shape are similar to Pandas, aside from the tail.

>

> >The only part valid comparison here are Ostrich and Emu and even they are actually related but not that close.

>

> I mean they're both birds, but they're not even in the same order. Might point was, things can look very similar, even in some cases *be* very similar, while being very distinct under the hood.

>

> >No. Transporting less and lighter bricks per tour doesn't equal more effort for the same count of bricks.

>

> Again with you and your "lighter bricks," I still don't get why they have to be both less *and* lighter for you. The analogy was *less* of the *same* bricks, making the *load* each time lighter. That's all that's needed to make the analogy fit. So if you carry 10 bricks 100 times, it takes five times as many trips as if you carry 50 bricks 20 times, and each *trip* does certainly take less effort, and would deserve to be paid less, but at the end of the process, both of you ended up transporting the exact same 1000 bricks, and deserve to wind up with the exact same compensation.

>

> >You demand a mode were failing is only possible if you do everything wrong that you can do wrong. Yes that is facerolling content and demanding a mode where you can one-shot everything.

>

> Nope. Libel.

>

> >One-Shotting bosses means you go in and kill it without or very little knowledge on your first try.

>

> No, one-shotting bosses means you go in, press an attack button, and the boss dies to that single shot. I'm not sure what the term is for what you're intending to mean.

>

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

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

> > > > > But again, nobody is talking about "less effort." *Equal* effort, spread out over a longer timetable.

> > > >

> > > > That's not equal effort. Not by a long, long, loooooooooooooong shot.

> > >

> > > That's factually untrue. It doesn't make it less effort just because you want it to be less effort.

> >

> > It's not about what I what, it's about what it is. You want a version of the raids with essentially *everything* that requires effort removed. Learning the encounters, removed. Challenge, removed. No amount of time can make this equal in effort to the real deal, plain and simple. There's no effort in that. Any finite number times zero equals zero.

>

> It's not about what I what, it's about what it is. You want a version of the raids with essentially everything that requires effort removed. Learning the encounters, removed. Challenge, removed. No amount of time can make this equal in effort to the real deal, plain and simple. There's no effort in that. Any finite number times zero equals zero.

>

> And yet a million times one is a million. However much you belittle the effort that would be needed to complete the run, it *would* take a positive amount of effort. Less effort per run than the current raids, indisputably, but nowhere near "zero," and therefore, it does deserve a fair fraction of the same rewards per attempt, and the opportunity for those fractional shares to eventually add up tot he same potential rewards.

 

Ok, can you please write what you expect from easy raid player to have good chances? Like what dps should be enough?

Looks like you know VG. Can you propose changes that would be acceptable for easy raids on that boss please?

 

Also if you want to make the gap between meta skilled players and random casual players smaller to the point where dps doesnt rly matter it doesnt encourage players to try and thats from my perspective bad design.

And if not since rewards for raids are limited to once per week i dont know why wouldnt raiders go fo full easymode run after they are done with nirmal fullclear since they can finish it in so short time. Its basicaly like 1-2 extra bosses.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:

> Ok, can you please write what you expect from easy raid player to have good chances? Like what dps should be enough?

 

I believe I can answer that. Basically what they expect is being able to beat every encounter regardless of how bad build or comp they're using. Or how bad their execution is. That's what they expect, plus they expect getting Envoy for doing it.