On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >Fractal skins are also not available in PvP, so are the exotic versions of all PoF weapons that need to be crafted. Same goes for luminescent armor. Or ascended skins from Tequatl and Triple Trouble. See open world has its own exclusive skins, but that's fine right? But if you would care you would argue for all rewards not just raids but it is only about yourself.

>

> Again, I **in no way oppose** opening up those items as well. My overall proposal involves all items, but my personal focus at the moment is on raid items, as they have the highest current accessibility barrier relative to the rest of the game. "Whataboutism" does you no favors here.

>

> >Why does discussions about easy modes of raids always turn to loot discussions?

>

> Because of posts like this one, which was #2 in the thread:

> > @"thrag.9740" said:

> > 3.) Rewards. Any online game has an aspect of competitiveness to it, and so rewards need to be balanced properly across difficulty modes, or players will feel unrewarded. This then leads to uneven population splits among the tiers and even longer que times, making point 1 even more of a problem. You can experience this in fractals right now. T4 and T1 fill quickly, but T2 and T3 not so much.

>

> You can't have a thread about raids without raiders ensuring that they retain exclusive access to any rewards they were gifted. Rewards re, obviously a significant part of the discussion though, so it only makes sense to discuss them.

>

> >Oh right, it is about loot and greed from people that can't complete or don't like certain tasks in the game. It is never about the community, story.

>

> Rewards are obviously part of it, not the only part, however much some people protest that it is, but that doesn't in any way invalidate the position. Peope who don't want to raid have as much right to demand access to those rewards as raiders have to demand exclusivity of them. If either party is being greedy, it would be those raiders, since those on the outside are only asking that *everyone* be able to have them, while those on the inside are demanding that *only* they get access.

>

> >A reward overhaul at this stage of a game will kill it. It is 5.5 years old. People that would have cared about your reward structure are long gone and will never return even if you change it now. But you will loose are big portion of the actual playerbase without any compensation.

>

> That's the exact sort of argument I would make against putting raids in the game, but look how that turned out?

>

> I see no reason that this proposal would in any way harm the game, it could only improve things by giving players more to chase.

 

If you would care about it you would argue in General Discussion about a reward overhaul. But you only are present for raid rewards.

If it was about something else you would try to guide the discussion in your preferred direction. You argue pages about loot without any hint of the original topic. Yes loot is the primary factor for you. The rest are welcomed arguments that may support you but not your real concern.

 

Raids didn't affect anyone that could profit from your agenda. Many people were hired specifically for it or were already present for high level instanced content. The skins wouldn't be in the game without raids in the first place. It didn't affect the open world players, the players you claim to speak for.

 

It costs development time that is better spend on creating new content rather than something that is only wanted by a very small minority. The raid community is bigger than you think. The poll here in this forum section suggests about 15-20% of the playerbase is raiding. More than enough to justify it.

GW2efficiency data is useless. Too many dead accounts from people that left years ago.

Remove the rewards from WvW and see the participation plummed. How could that negatively affect that game mode?

All your 'ideas' have the same goal. Get something in a different game mode you like with less effort than the original source. A time gate doesn't change the intention.

There were many negative side effects presented to you but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>If you would care about it you would argue in General Discussion about a reward overhaul. But you only are present for raid rewards.

 

Again, "whataboutism" helps no one. Just because someone chooses to focus on one thing, doesn't mean that they oppose every other thing in the world. People are allowed to have a focus. I'm honest about mine.

 

>If it was about something else you would try to guide the discussion in your preferred direction. You argue pages about loot without any hint of the original topic.

 

You overestimate my attention span. I tend to go where the conversation leads, I have no particular interest in "steering" it, although I do point out from time to time when someone's comments are completely off topic. Rewards are a fair part of the conversation, because they do matter to players on both sides of this topic.

 

>Raids didn't affect anyone that could profit from your agenda. Many people were hired specifically for it or were already present for high level instanced content. The skins wouldn't be in the game without raids in the first place. It didn't affect the open world players, the players you claim to speak for.

 

**Obviously** the skins would still be in the game if not for raids. Maybe not the *exact* skins, but equivalent ones (which had an even chance of being even cooler). The people who worked on the skins weren't "raid only" people, they would have been working on *some* type of skin regardless of whether raids existed, and by this point we almost certainly would have had Legendary armor, just released in a different way if not for raids, probably something more like Gen 2 Legendaries. Most of the same employees would also have been working on other content for the game, maybe a faster or better LW release. At worst, if any employee were 100% about raids and wouldn't have been hired otherwise, then they would have found work on some other project, and that budget money would have been spent on another developer that GW2 could use. It's all a closed loop.

 

>It costs development time that is better spend on creating new content rather than something that is only wanted by a very small minority. The raid community is bigger than you think. The poll here in this forum section suggests about 15-20% of the playerbase is raiding. More than enough to justify it.

 

The poll in the raid forum, you mean. The poll that skews about 10% higher than any other poll on the subject? That one?

 

>Remove the rewards from WvW and see the participation plummed. How could that negatively affect that game mode?

 

Who knows? Nobody is suggesting removing any rewards from anything though, so that's a moot point.

 

>All your 'ideas' have the same goal. Get something in a different game mode you like with less effort than the original source.

 

Nope.

 

You'd think it would have sunk in by now, if only through osmosis, but what I *actually* want is to get something in a different game mode I like (along with several *other* game modes that I don't) with *equal to or greater* effort than the original source.

 

I've said it enough times that I really shouldn't need to keep repeating it, but people keep getting it completely wrong.

 

>A time gate doesn't change the intention.

 

The time gate is supplemental to the effort gate, not in replacement of it. *You* were the one that asked for the time gate.

 

>There were many negative side effects presented to you but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

There are downsides to everything, there were *definitely* downsides to adding raids in the first place. I believe that the upsides to this one strongly outweigh any downsides that have been raised so far.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >If you would care about it you would argue in General Discussion about a reward overhaul. But you only are present for raid rewards.

>

> Again, "whataboutism" helps no one. Just because someone chooses to focus on one thing, doesn't mean that they oppose every other thing in the world. People are allowed to have a focus. I'm honest about mine.

>

> >If it was about something else you would try to guide the discussion in your preferred direction. You argue pages about loot without any hint of the original topic.

>

> You overestimate my attention span. I tend to go where the conversation leads, I have no particular interest in "steering" it, although I do point out from time to time when someone's comments are completely off topic. Rewards are a fair part of the conversation, because they do matter to players on both sides of this topic.

>

> >Raids didn't affect anyone that could profit from your agenda. Many people were hired specifically for it or were already present for high level instanced content. The skins wouldn't be in the game without raids in the first place. It didn't affect the open world players, the players you claim to speak for.

>

> **Obviously** the skins would still be in the game if not for raids. Maybe not the *exact* skins, but equivalent ones (which had an even chance of being even cooler). The people who worked on the skins weren't "raid only" people, they would have been working on *some* type of skin regardless of whether raids existed, and by this point we almost certainly would have had Legendary armor, just released in a different way if not for raids, probably something more like Gen 2 Legendaries. Most of the same employees would also have been working on other content for the game, maybe a faster or better LW release. At worst, if any employee were 100% about raids and wouldn't have been hired otherwise, then they would have found work on some other project, and that budget money would have been spent on another developer that GW2 could use. It's all a closed loop.

>

> >It costs development time that is better spend on creating new content rather than something that is only wanted by a very small minority. The raid community is bigger than you think. The poll here in this forum section suggests about 15-20% of the playerbase is raiding. More than enough to justify it.

>

> The poll in the raid forum, you mean. The poll that skews about 10% higher than any other poll on the subject? That one?

>

> >Remove the rewards from WvW and see the participation plummed. How could that negatively affect that game mode?

>

> Who knows? Nobody is suggesting removing any rewards from anything though, so that's a moot point.

>

> >All your 'ideas' have the same goal. Get something in a different game mode you like with less effort than the original source.

>

> Nope.

>

> You'd think it would have sunk in by now, if only through osmosis, but what I *actually* want is to get something in a different game mode I like (along with several *other* game modes that I don't) with *equal to or greater* effort than the original source.

>

> I've said it enough times that I really shouldn't need to keep repeating it, but people keep getting it completely wrong.

>

> >A time gate doesn't change the intention.

>

> The time gate is supplemental to the effort gate, not in replacement of it. *You* were the one that asked for the time gate.

>

> >There were many negative side effects presented to you but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

>

> There are downsides to everything, there were *definitely* downsides to adding raids in the first place. I believe that the upsides to this one strongly outweigh any downsides that have been raised so far.

 

It's highly unlikely that an animated armor like the envoy skins would have ever found the way into the game without the introduction of legendary armor with raids.

 

If your attention span is so small you can't even focus on a discussion you started yourself you shouldn't discuss anything in the first place and can't be taken seriously.

 

It is not a closed loop. Most of them were already part of high level instanced content. The open world would have got nothing. We may have more fractals now but the open world players would got nothing new. And those are the majority you claim to speak for.

 

All modes claim their unique rewards. It just happens that raids tend to attract more vocal people that want the rewards but can't get them more than other parts of the game.

 

You can't replicate an effort that requires interaction with other people in any shape with a solo task. You want it easier.

 

You suggested the time gate. I said it is a bad idea and time gates are universally hated. Don't twist words if you want to be taken seriously.

 

So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> It's highly unlikely that an animated armor like the envoy skins would have ever found the way into the game without the introduction of legendary armor with raids.

 

They discussed adding Legendary armor very early in the game's lifespan. They've since added Legendary backpieces and trinkets. It's almost impossible that they would have gone this long without introducing legendary armor in some form. You do **not** need raiding to be in the game to add Legendary Armor to the game, the only thing that would have changed is the delivery method. Again, if raiding had never existed, they most likely would have added Legendary armor in a similar manner to Gen 2 Legendary Weapons, a simple open world quest chain.

 

>It is not a closed loop. Most of them were already part of high level instanced content. The open world would have got nothing. We may have more fractals now but the open world players would got nothing new. And those are the majority you claim to speak for.

 

There were a number of people involved in the process. Some were encounter designers, others were environmental and character artists, that sort of thing. If anything, only 1-2 of the content development types would *have* to be involved in instanced content, the rest would have been just as talented at making open world maps or LW story missions. If nothing else, LWs3 likely would have started months sooner. I discussed this fairly early into the raids, but the raid maps themselves easily could have existed as open world maps, small, specialized, but open to dozens of players at once in a free roaming style. I'm not suggesting they do that now, converting them would be a LOT more work than making an easier version of the existing content, I'm just pointing out that it would have been possible, that same work could have been put to a different purpose.

 

>All modes claim their unique rewards. It just happens that raids tend to attract more vocal people that want the rewards but can't get them more than other parts of the game.

 

Ok, what's your point? My position is that all the unique rewards are bad.

 

>You can't replicate an effort that requires interaction with other people in any shape with a solo task. You want it easier.

 

Adding more people to a task doesn't make it more difficult, it just makes it more likely to fail. In individual player's role in a raid is no more difficult than if it were single player content, there's just a higher chance that 1:10 players, or more, will mess up. Each player is still responsible for bringing the exact same performance. I do want an easier mode though, one with a lower chance of *any* player failing. Easier is a far different thing than "less effort" though. Effort is a measure of work expended, not challenge.

 

>You suggested the time gate. I said it is a bad idea and time gates are universally hated. Don't twist words if you want to be taken seriously.

 

You said it would be a problem is players doing activity B could achieve the goal faster than those doing activity A. I presented the obvious solution. What would you prefer to achieve the same result?

 

>So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

 

Increased player toxicity. Segregation of rewards, story content, and developer attention away from other parts of the game. The obvious stuff.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

>

> Increased player toxicity. Segregation of rewards, story content, and developer attention away from other parts of the game. The obvious stuff.

 

Nice meme. However, entirely wrong.

 

Toxicity existed before raids and it didn't increase. Players were kicked from parties for something as generic as AP score. If anything, raids *decreased* the toxicity by introducing more focused indicators.

 

Segregation of rewards also predates raids. Easiest example - even gen 1 legendaries *required* you to map-complete Tyria. It was never possible to craft one by doing solely WvW or PvP.

 

Story content is delivered on a regular basis, an actually more frequently than raids. Which is fine by the way.

 

Similarly, developer attention doesn't seem to be focused on raids, for the same reason. Raids are the least often updated content. Open world, personal story and fractals all receive more updates. Which, again, is fine.

[zealex.9410]

Raids dont effect the entire game so why would they be part of the same arguement as with reworking the rewards of the entire game.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > It's highly unlikely that an animated armor like the envoy skins would have ever found the way into the game without the introduction of legendary armor with raids.

>

> They discussed adding Legendary armor very early in the game's lifespan. They've since added Legendary backpieces and trinkets. It's almost impossible that they would have gone this long without introducing legendary armor in some form. You do **not** need raiding to be in the game to add Legendary Armor to the game, the only thing that would have changed is the delivery method. Again, if raiding had never existed, they most likely would have added Legendary armor in a similar manner to Gen 2 Legendary Weapons, a simple open world quest chain.

>

> >It is not a closed loop. Most of them were already part of high level instanced content. The open world would have got nothing. We may have more fractals now but the open world players would got nothing new. And those are the majority you claim to speak for.

>

> There were a number of people involved in the process. Some were encounter designers, others were environmental and character artists, that sort of thing. If anything, only 1-2 of the content development types would *have* to be involved in instanced content, the rest would have been just as talented at making open world maps or LW story missions. If nothing else, LWs3 likely would have started months sooner. I discussed this fairly early into the raids, but the raid maps themselves easily could have existed as open world maps, small, specialized, but open to dozens of players at once in a free roaming style. I'm not suggesting they do that now, converting them would be a LOT more work than making an easier version of the existing content, I'm just pointing out that it would have been possible, that same work could have been put to a different purpose.

>

> >All modes claim their unique rewards. It just happens that raids tend to attract more vocal people that want the rewards but can't get them more than other parts of the game.

>

> Ok, what's your point? My position is that all the unique rewards are bad.

>

> >You can't replicate an effort that requires interaction with other people in any shape with a solo task. You want it easier.

>

> Adding more people to a task doesn't make it more difficult, it just makes it more likely to fail. In individual player's role in a raid is no more difficult than if it were single player content, there's just a higher chance that 1:10 players, or more, will mess up. Each player is still responsible for bringing the exact same performance. I do want an easier mode though, one with a lower chance of *any* player failing. Easier is a far different thing than "less effort" though. Effort is a measure of work expended, not challenge.

>

> >You suggested the time gate. I said it is a bad idea and time gates are universally hated. Don't twist words if you want to be taken seriously.

>

> You said it would be a problem is players doing activity B could achieve the goal faster than those doing activity A. I presented the obvious solution. What would you prefer to achieve the same result?

>

> >So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

>

> Increased player toxicity. Segregation of rewards, story content, and developer attention away from other parts of the game. The obvious stuff.

 

Every part of the game i dont like i can say that takes developer attention from other parts.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > It's highly unlikely that an animated armor like the envoy skins would have ever found the way into the game without the introduction of legendary armor with raids.

>

> They discussed adding Legendary armor very early in the game's lifespan. They've since added Legendary backpieces and trinkets. It's almost impossible that they would have gone this long without introducing legendary armor in some form. You do **not** need raiding to be in the game to add Legendary Armor to the game, the only thing that would have changed is the delivery method. Again, if raiding had never existed, they most likely would have added Legendary armor in a similar manner to Gen 2 Legendary Weapons, a simple open world quest chain.

>

> >It is not a closed loop. Most of them were already part of high level instanced content. The open world would have got nothing. We may have more fractals now but the open world players would got nothing new. And those are the majority you claim to speak for.

>

> There were a number of people involved in the process. Some were encounter designers, others were environmental and character artists, that sort of thing. If anything, only 1-2 of the content development types would *have* to be involved in instanced content, the rest would have been just as talented at making open world maps or LW story missions. If nothing else, LWs3 likely would have started months sooner. I discussed this fairly early into the raids, but the raid maps themselves easily could have existed as open world maps, small, specialized, but open to dozens of players at once in a free roaming style. I'm not suggesting they do that now, converting them would be a LOT more work than making an easier version of the existing content, I'm just pointing out that it would have been possible, that same work could have been put to a different purpose.

>

> >All modes claim their unique rewards. It just happens that raids tend to attract more vocal people that want the rewards but can't get them more than other parts of the game.

>

> Ok, what's your point? My position is that all the unique rewards are bad.

>

> >You can't replicate an effort that requires interaction with other people in any shape with a solo task. You want it easier.

>

> Adding more people to a task doesn't make it more difficult, it just makes it more likely to fail. In individual player's role in a raid is no more difficult than if it were single player content, there's just a higher chance that 1:10 players, or more, will mess up. Each player is still responsible for bringing the exact same performance. I do want an easier mode though, one with a lower chance of *any* player failing. Easier is a far different thing than "less effort" though. Effort is a measure of work expended, not challenge.

>

> >You suggested the time gate. I said it is a bad idea and time gates are universally hated. Don't twist words if you want to be taken seriously.

>

> You said it would be a problem is players doing activity B could achieve the goal faster than those doing activity A. I presented the obvious solution. What would you prefer to achieve the same result?

>

> >So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

>

> Increased player toxicity. Segregation of rewards, story content, and developer attention away from other parts of the game. The obvious stuff.

 

It is completely possible if they wouldn't have found a proper way to reward it until now. Legendary armor was never mentioned from ArenaNet until HoT reveal. It took 5 years from release of GW2 to the release of legendary armor.

 

The raid maps are mostly one way maps. You can't roam freely there. They are not designed to work as an open world map.

 

Yes and their talent would have been wasted as the majority doesn't want that kind of content especially not in story instances. You are the best example. Mechanics are fine as long as they can't hurt you.

 

You can't replicate mechanics that needs players to cooperate, like Samarog bombs and Dhuum's Soul Shackle as a solo task. You don't want a lower chance of failing. You want zero chance. Social interaction is a kind of effort for many players.

 

My point is that raids tend to attract people that want shinies but can't get them as raids needs more players while also lower the willingness to carry players through content that can't pull their weight.

 

My solution is that every part of the game has its own unique skins. You are the one that wants to mash everything into the same bowl, so _you_ have to come up with a proper solution that doesn't make it easier than the original source, like farming a generic currency that is already present.

 

The toxicity didn't increase. It was way higher during the dungeon days (looking at you Aetherpath) or high level fractals but people tend to forget it as it was years ago. Rewards were already seperated before raids. They were already seperated at release. There are skins that could be only obtained via sPvP and got unavailable after the PvP reward overhaul. Forsaken Thicket story is available via LS3, you get even more information about the raids than in the raid itself. You don't know what would have happened without raids with the spare development time, pure speculation.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Raids dont effect the entire game so why would they be part of the same arguement as with reworking the rewards of the entire game.

 

Because they are a part of the game, the same as any other.

 

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Every part of the game i dont like i can say that takes developer attention from other parts.

 

True. That makes it a downside. The question is whether it's a downside that's worth it. My point was, whatever downsides making an easier raid mode or distributing rewards more evenly might cause, it would be worth it relative to the benefits.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>It is completely possible if they wouldn't have found a proper way to reward it until now. Legendary armor was never mentioned from ArenaNet until HoT reveal. It took 5 years from release of GW2 to the release of legendary armor.

 

I believe there were earlier comments, just nothing concrete as to when it would appear. Again, it's just silly to prete4nd that Legendary armor never would have existed without raids. What is it about raids that make you believe that they are vital to the existence of Legendary armor?

 

>The raid maps are mostly one way maps. You can't roam freely there. They are not designed to work as an open world map.

 

That would be fairly trivial to fix though. Worst case they could have been like Dragon's Stand, a "push event chain" map.

 

>Yes and their talent would have been wasted as the majority doesn't want that kind of content especially not in story instances. You are the best example. Mechanics are fine as long as they can't hurt you.

 

Yes. They are very fun unless they get frustrating. The problem maps are the ones that get frustrating because they too easily one-shot people.

 

>You can't replicate mechanics that needs players to cooperate, like Samarog bombs and Dhuum's Soul Shackle as a solo task. You don't want a lower chance of failing. You want zero chance. Social interaction is a kind of effort for many players.

 

I'm not asking them to, nor am I saying that they would have made the exact same encounters as solo encounters. What I'm saying is that the people who *designed* those encounters could have spent the same time and effort working on encounters that were designed to work well for single or open world encounters.

 

>My point is that raids tend to attract people that want shinies but can't get them as raids needs more players while also lower the willingness to carry players through content that can't pull their weight.

 

100% agree, we just seem to disagree about how to fix that.

 

>My solution is that every part of the game has its own unique skins.

 

That's not a solution, that's just reiterating the problem. Unique skins for each mode is no solution. If content A gets unique skin A, and content B gets unique skin B, that's not a solution, that's not balanced, because how much each player cares about each skin is entirely subjective. You can never claim that any one skin is "equal" to any other. I mean, I definitely want *some* portions of the Envoy skins, but there are other portions I wouldn't be caught dead in, and would value a level 30 green skin over them. The solution has to involve everyone getting the skins *they* are interested in getting, not the ones that were arbitrarily assigned to a specific task.

 

>You don't know what would have happened without raids with the spare development time, pure speculation.

 

Neither do you, but the answer is that *something* would have happened with that time. It's not like they would have just paid those devs to sit in a room eight hours a day doing absolutely nothing. Each developer has certain things they are good at, you don't usually take an environmental artist and throw them on sound design or combat mechanics or something. Each developer would have been doing *something* vaguely similar to what they provided to the raids. That is not really "speculative," it's just common sense.

[zealex.9410]

Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

 

Alot of ppl have also stated that they would like instanced content over the ppen world releases. Hows is anet trying to please that group as well a problem idk.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

 

No, it is a *problem,* just not a problem for every player, and some players choose not to *care* whether those players are happy.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

>

> No, it is a *problem,* just not a problem for every player, and some players choose not to *care* whether those players are happy.

 

How is it a problem? The game had them since release and it kept growing.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

>

> No, it is a *problem,* just not a problem for every player, and some players choose not to *care* whether those players are happy.

 

Similarly how you wouldnt care if players who prefer unique rewards would have a problem with having no unique rewards.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

> >

> > No, it is a *problem,* just not a problem for every player, and some players choose not to *care* whether those players are happy.

>

> How is it a problem? The game had them since release and it kept growing.

 

The game has had a lot of things since release. Just because something is a problem does not mean it's automatically fatal to the game. I think most players would agree that the lack of build-swapping in the UI is a problem the game has had at launch. The game has survived that, but it would be improved by fixing it.

 

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > Its not a problem that there are unique rewards in parts of the game. You have a problem with it.

> >

> > No, it is a *problem,* just not a problem for every player, and some players choose not to *care* whether those players are happy.

>

> Similarly how you wouldnt care if players who prefer unique rewards would have a problem with having no unique rewards.

 

False equivalency. It is a *problem* that Player A cannot earn the rewards he wants without having to run content he does not enjoy. It is *not* a problem if Player B isn't allowed to gatekeep what rewards Player A is "allowed" to earn. In the first situation, both players can have the thing they want. In the second, the other player can only be happy with what he has if the other player does not. These are not equivalent situations.

[zealex.9410]

Unlike with the chages to loot addingbuild templated would be seen by all as a huge positive. While taking exclusivity and flavour from places and mashing it all together would make quite a few ppl unhappy.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Unlike with the chages to loot addingbuild templated would be seen by all as a huge positive. While taking exclusivity and flavour from places and mashing it all together would make quite a few ppl unhappy.

 

Agreed, but it would make more people happy, so it's worth doing.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Unlike with the chages to loot addingbuild templated would be seen by all as a huge positive. While taking exclusivity and flavour from places and mashing it all together would make quite a few ppl unhappy.

>

> Agreed, but it would make more people happy, so it's worth doing.

 

I dont think it would. As u said theres alot of ppl that simply dont care about it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > Unlike with the chages to loot addingbuild templated would be seen by all as a huge positive. While taking exclusivity and flavour from places and mashing it all together would make quite a few ppl unhappy.

> >

> > Agreed, but it would make more people happy, so it's worth doing.

>

> I dont think it would. As u said theres alot of ppl that simply dont care about it.

 

There are a lot of people who don't care about it either way. There are a lot that would benefit, and a few that would be upset about it. The good outweighs the bad.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> There are a lot that would benefit, and a few that would be upset about it. The good outweighs the bad.

 

You don't have any numbers or proof that this is the case and that's the problem. It's more like Ohoni would benefit while not only a few raiders would be upset. From my point of view the bad would outweighs the good because I don't want to hand out this particular armor to players like you. It's not deserved for you at all due to not passing the challenge. For me the difference still stands the skin and the functionality in combination is a true raid reward, nothing that should be easily grinded at all. You have to bleed for it in most cases by killing raid bosses or - rarer - by spending a lot of gold to sellers (which shouldn't be possible imho but it's ok for me because it's a lot). Playing easy content over and over should not give such reward at all. But here we disagree and can stop to discuss any further.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> You don't have any numbers or proof that this is the case and that's the problem.

 

And neither are there any numbers indicating that it's not, so all either side can bring to the discussion is opinion. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

>It's more like Ohoni would benefit while not only a few raiders would be upset.

 

That's not a reasonable explanation of the situation. Obviously plenty of other players *would* benefit, you cannot reasonably say that this is something which would *only* benefit me.

 

>From my point of view the bad would outweighs the good because I don't want to hand out this particular armor to players like you.

 

Right, and that's why my point is that in that case, you wouldn't matter because your position is preposterously self-absorbed. You can't be satisfied with why you have unless you can also withhold it from others, you don't see the moral problem in that viewpoint?

 

>For me the difference still stands the skin and the functionality in combination is a true raid reward, nothing that should be easily grinded at all.

 

That presupposes the Raider-elitism viewpoint that somehow raid content is "superior" to other content and somehow "more deserving" of benefits than other content. This is exactly the sort fo raider toxicity I was talking about earlier. No, you are not special for enjoying raiding, raiding is not some superior tier of content. If you enjoy raiding? Great, but that doesn't make you any *better* than someone who enjoys world boss farming.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> See open world has its own exclusive skins, but that's fine right?

No., it's not fine. I'd completely support making those cases more open, and i have been speaking up in at least some of those already. Which, by the way, you already know because it's not the first time you're bringing that up (nor the second either...).

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> It costs development time that is better spend on creating new content rather than something that is only wanted by a very small minority. The raid community is bigger than you think. The poll here in this forum section suggests about 15-20% of the playerbase is raiding.

No, the poll suggested that about 15-20% of _the people reading the subforum dedicated to more challenging instanced content_ (and carig anough about it to take part in the poll) are raiding. Which is a really bad result, because in that situation i'd expect it to reach over 50% even if it wasn't very popular otherwise.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> All modes claim their unique rewards. It just happens that raids tend to attract more vocal people that want the rewards but can't get them more than other parts of the game.

"It just happens" that other parts of the game are way more open than raids. People are generally more okay with a low-level exclusivity, especially if it's not widely advertised. And it so just happens that raids are not only highly exclusive, but also are very in-your-face about it.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> So tell us the downsides of raids that are actual facts and not based on pure speculation.

The greatest? Splitting the community. Something Raiders themselves consider to be a great sin (but only bring up when easy mode is being talked about, forgetting that raids are already guilty of it).

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Toxicity existed before raids and it didn't increase. Players were kicked from parties for something as generic as AP score.

True, toxicity existed before, and people were being kicked out of parties due to it, but that was a minority. Highly visible, but still peripheral. Before raids, LFGs with restriction were only a small part of the whole. Before raids, a blank, default lfg with no added restrictions was considered to be an "all open" one by everyone joining in (even "toxic elitists"). Now meta and restrictions are the default, and the "open" lfgs are a minority.

Yes, there was a change, and it is very visible.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Legendary armor was never mentioned from ArenaNet until HoT reveal.

There _were_ mentions about it around the same time they first mentioned a second legendary weapon set and legendary crafting. So, in the first year of the game.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Yes and their talent would have been wasted as the majority doesn't want that kind of content especially not in story instances.

A lot of the effort spent on raids lies in art (graphic and music) department. Those in no way depend on specific gamemode and the people doing it could have worked for any other part of the game with absolutely no problem. In fact, they almost certainly _do_ work on other parts of the game as well - i sincerely doubt that the legendary armor was made by an artist that was hired specifically for raids and for raids only.

 

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> How is it a problem? The game had them since release and it kept growing.

There were only two cases of comparable (or higher) levels of exclusivity before raids. One was hellfire/radiant sets - and you can see that still brought up as a problem from time to time (and it generated some really violent discussion threads in the past). The second (glorious set) was less complained about, because, ironically, it was too exclusive - most of the people didn't even notice it existed.

 

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

> Right, and that's why my point is that in that case, you wouldn't matter because your position is preposterously self-absorbed. You can't be satisfied with why you have unless you can also withhold it from others, you don't see the moral problem in that viewpoint?

 

There is no moral problem in it and it's also not preposterously self-absorbed. There is just no single reason that you should get the same reward for doing unpretentious content. I can understand that it's your wish but it's nothing more than that.

 

> That presupposes the Raider-elitism viewpoint that somehow raid content is "superior" to other content and somehow "more deserving" of benefits than other content. This is exactly the sort fo raider toxicity I was talking about earlier. No, you are not special for enjoying raiding, raiding is not some superior tier of content. If you enjoy raiding? Great, but that doesn't make you any *better* than someone who enjoys world boss farming.

 

That's not toxicity or elitism at all. And of course, Anet decided that you are special if you can beat raids by handing out the armor, titles and some other skins. They put raiders on the PvE throne because they are able to overcome the most challenging content that exists in this game. That's their opinion of how people should be awarded and there is no objective difference - only your subjective opinion - when you say that titles for raiders are ok but skins are not. Mine is the opposite and it doesn't make me worse than you in terms of moral. You are not entiteld to set the rules but we all understood you would like to.

 

Ultimately yes, someone who is able to raid is most likely very much better at playing the game than someone who can only do world boss farming (people with diseases aside) since I made this evolution myself when I started GW2 as my first (and only) MMO and shifted from dying to open world mobs to successfully playing harder instanced content a.k.a. dungeons, fractals & raids.

[zealex.9410]

Its not the players that already have the armor that prevent others from getting it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

>There is no moral problem in it and it's also not preposterously self-absorbed. There is just no single reason that you should get the same reward for doing unpretentious content. I can understand that it's your wish but it's nothing more than that.

 

Of coruse there's a single reason, the only reason that matters, "it would make players happy to be able to have the thing they want." There's no reason *not* to allow it.

 

>> That presupposes the Raider-elitism viewpoint that somehow raid content is "superior" to other content and somehow "more deserving" of benefits than other content. This is exactly the sort fo raider toxicity I was talking about earlier. No, you are not special for enjoying raiding, raiding is not some superior tier of content. If you enjoy raiding? Great, but that doesn't make you any better than someone who enjoys world boss farming.

 

>That's not toxicity or elitism at all.

 

That is *literally* the definition of elitism.

 

>Ultimately yes, someone who is able to raid is most likely very much better at playing the game than someone who can only do world boss farming

 

Agreed, but so what? Why should that matter? This is a game, and they paid for the same box you did. The point of the game is to enjoy it, and if you enjoy raiding, and they enjoy open world, then both of you are playing the game EQUALLY as well, even if everyone agrees that your content is more challenging. The point is that there's no reason why you would *deserve* exclusive rewards for playing how you enjoy. Just because ANet has so far *chosen* to give you the *gift* of exclusive rewards should not confuse you into believing you're *entitled* to them.

 

They can, and should change their stance on that.

 

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Its not the players that already have the armor that prevent others from getting it.

 

Of course not, it's the players who are saying "they shouldn't implement easy mode raids, and if they do it can't have good rewards" that are preventing others from having it, or at the very least contributing negatively to the conversation around the topic. I would have no problem with a hardcore raider that did *not* try to gatekeep access to raid content and rewards. I've yet to actually fine one though. . .

[Lunateric.3708]

Envoy skins will remain raid exclusive no matter what user Ohoni says or wants, as in it was stated before by devs when legendary armor was added to PvP and WvW. I particularly don't mind them (ANET) adding more paths to legendary armor or not or even giving raids an easier setting. What I think shouldn't happen is:

 

* Easier raids give any sort of reward other than maybe lootbags.

* Easier raids take away resources from other important projects for the game (almost guaranteed).

 

You won't get these **legendary** skins outside its intended method the same way you can't get Ad Infinitum outside fractals, The Ascension outside ranked PvP or Warbringer outside WvW.