On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Adenin.5973]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Except it **doesn't** make it more accessible. Fractals have tiers, yet you don't see new players going into cms. It's predominantly raiders who play these. Now, of course, people start somewhere. I myself started with low tier fractals, progressed into t4 and then into raids. But that's the thing - the tiers already exist **for the players that have the motivation and desire to progress**. Adding tiers to raids would change nothing. Just like casual players don't play fractal cms now, they won't start playing raids either. Because the challenge level of this content exceeds their comfort zone. Otherwise they'd be raiders already, or they will become ones anyway. Your theory is wrong, and it is proven wrong by the existing state of the game. Refusing to accept it doesn't change the facts.

 

Accesibility of fractals does not mean accessibility of t4 cms.

 

It's about how many ppl play certain content in general. Like in "how many people play t1-t4+cms combined together".

 

And to say that fractals would be as popular as they're right now if they'd only t4 or even only cms is simply false. Look at raids. There's what would've happened to fractals if you would've tried to throw all ppl into the same challenging content. A massive lack of players, that's what would've happened.

 

Also you're saying that the reason why ppl don't raid is because they can't handle the challenge and then you say that lowering the entry barrier which would lower the challenge would not get those ppl into raiding? Makes no sense, sry

[CptAurellian.9537]

No matter how easy you'd make raids in GW2, there's no reason to expect a majority of players to play them. Just like every part of this game apart from open world PvE, it's niche content. There are some interesting insights you can gain from the gw2efficiency database. Keep in mind that this is probably somewhat biased towards more hardcore players, so reality will look more bleak. Fractals are pretty close to what you obviously imagine for raids - different difficulty levels, different rewards, no barrier at all to entrance. Yet ...

... 11% of the registered playerbase do not possess a single fractal relic and 51% are below 250, indicating that they pretty much never play fractals.

... pristine relics look even bleaker - 18.5% without any, 74.5% below 100.

... only 19% have reached fractal level 100. The median is a paltry level 38.

... 68% are below 5 fractal skins, 88% below 22 (half of the available ones).

 

The conclusion from this kind of data is simple: Fractals, despite having no barrier to entry, are ignored by the vast majority of players. You wouldn't get these people into raids anyway. Trying to cater them will only drive away those who actually play this kind of niche content. Screw with enough niches and suddenly the game is empty.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

 

> What? There are tons of ppl playing the lower tiers.

No, there are not. That's a lie.

 

> "Liking the rewards" and "climbing or not climbing the ladder" have not even a logical connection. It makes no sense to say that someone that likes rewards didn't want or need to climb the ladder. Srsly think a moment for yourself what you actually wanted to say with that because it makes no sense.

 

It makes sense. If there wouldn't have been a ladder, people would instantly use the path with the best outcome. It's not the fun of climbing the ladder that holds people to play fractals and it wouldn't be any different story with raid tiers.

 

> Well how about T1 giving 20% of the rewards and 20% of the drop chances that T4 offers , T2 30%, T3 50%. Easy. Some of u ppl really don't WANT this to happen and search desperately for excuses. It's not rocket science guys.

 

No, because then the T4 for raids would be ridiculous small and have 0 value. You have to have knowledge of raids rewards otherwise it's hard to discuss about it with you!

 

 

> Anet has made severe mistakes in the past, looking at you LS1 and yes, I truly believe that raids will see an end sooner rather than later and it will be because well, simply too few ppl are playing them.

 

So, raids are a mistake. A repeating mistake it seems because we have wing 2, wing 3, wing 4 and wing 5 out now and the lfg for them is empty. Wait...this isn't true. Again!

Anet have stated that they more than satisfied with the raid population and it turned out more than the expected number of players are raiding. If that's a mistake, I don't know....

The argument of "sooner or later" cannot be kept up because "sooner or later" this game will bleed out with players anyway. And the main reason is not raids.

 

> Also, you don't want Anet to add difficulty levels for raids, that are not played by 9/10 players simply because you think that the level of difficulty is not what keeps people from playing that content, yet you tell me the very reason other ppl are playing it IS the difficulty of it. This makes no sense at all. Ppl are running fractals and dungeons, ppl cry about the new fractals being too difficult, too raid like, with too many mechanics, they're telling anet that they simply skip the dailies for these fracs. And you're telling me that difficulty levels are not the problem?

 

People just don't like to get out of their comfort zone. Yes, it is hard to master a new fractal again after a release but it's not impossible. I tell you, Shattered Observatory and Twilight Oasis are as easy as the others if you play them on a regular basis. Same goes with raids, it's just a matter of learning and no encounter is hard. Maybe Dhuum is a different thing, I don't know since I haven't killed him as much as the others but the lfg is probably against me because there are enough random groups going for him.

Players should take their time and learn the mechanics and the abilities of the fractals/raids (a.k.a. Special Action Key). As long as they deny to do that their only possibility is to cry for easier content. And according to the fractals stated above that's the way it goes. Those are easy if you stop to refuse to learn things.

 

> I am asking you a very simple question this comes all down to. Is there in your opinion a problem with the current implementation of raids, where 9/10 ppl don't play them? Yes or no?

 

No, due to different reasons. One of the biggest is that a lot of lot of lot of lot of people wouldn't even play "easy mode raids" like they have never played dungeons in vanilla GW2 before - they were/are just not interested in.

 

> Because if you don't think there's any problem with raids, then it's pointless to discuss any "solution" with you.

 

Why is it pointless? It's my opinion. You can have yours but I don't see any proof against or bias in my opinion. Reddit is calm. In the forums it's always the same 4-6 people ranting against raids. So, no there is no big problem visible.

 

 

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

>A massive lack of players, that's what would've happened.

 

I don't get that... Seriously, you know that the raid lfg is one of the most active lfgs in GW2, do you?

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Except it **doesn't** make it more accessible. Fractals have tiers, yet you don't see new players going into cms. It's predominantly raiders who play these. Now, of course, people start somewhere. I myself started with low tier fractals, progressed into t4 and then into raids. But that's the thing - the tiers already exist **for the players that have the motivation and desire to progress**. Adding tiers to raids would change nothing. Just like casual players don't play fractal cms now, they won't start playing raids either. Because the challenge level of this content exceeds their comfort zone. Otherwise they'd be raiders already, or they will become ones anyway. Your theory is wrong, and it is proven wrong by the existing state of the game. Refusing to accept it doesn't change the facts.

>

> Accesibility of fractals does not mean accessibility of t4 cms.

>

> It's about how many ppl play certain content in general. Like in "how many people play t1-t4+cms combined together".

>

> And to say that fractals would be as popular as they're right now if they'd only t4 or even only cms is simply false. Look at raids. There's what would've happened to fractals if you would've tried to throw all ppl into the same challenging content. A massive lack of players, that's what would've happened.

>

> Also you're saying that the reason why ppl don't raid is because they can't handle the challenge and then you say that lowering the entry barrier which would lower the challenge would not get those ppl into raiding? Makes no sense, sry

 

How many play the content in general is irrelevant. Raids were developed to cater to a specific type of players, and they're doing it well. For those who find them too hard there is already other content which serves the same purpose (to keep them in the game).

 

Also I never said fractals would be as popular, I said adding difficulties to raids won't change anything. Largely because fractals are already there and they fill the same niche an easy-mode raid would.

 

Also what you propose won't lower the entry barrier. You don't need to play easy mode raids in order to play raids. You need to play actual raids. The entry barrier is there. Same as with fractal CMs.

[Adenin.5973]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> How many play the content in general is irrelevant. Raids were developed to cater to a specific type of players, and they're doing it well. For those who find them too hard there is already other content which serves the same purpose (to keep them in the game).

 

Wow, okay then there's no reason to continue this discussion. You're completely fine that almost no one plays raids, since numbers don't matter to you. You're not here to search for any solution you're just here to defend your elitist status quo.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

>You're completely fine that almost no one plays raids.

 

This statement is complete nonsense.

 

As I already wrote: The raid lfg is one of the most active ones in GW2. You have zero clue about raids and the playerbase.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> The problem with all this is you want to trivialize mechanics which are quite fundamental to the fight itself, and by extension - the fights.

 

Yes, and that's not a problem, it's a solution. It's the point.

 

Players who don't want those elements trivialized can continue playing the harder versions.

 

>Nevermind that most of then are basically new mechanics.All of them require a brand new balance, done from scratch. It's neither easy, nor fast. Not to mention the fact that you'd kill any feeling of doing something special. Facing a bloodstone-infused elementalist so powerful that he can't control his own power? Bah, we do that every day and we can like, just use healing skill, right? Facing the fallen god of death? Cakewalk. It ruins any immersion. And unlike facing the distracted fallen god of fire in PoF story, you want to just faceroll these epic-level enemies without any external help. Just because you don't feel like putting any effort.

 

Then don't play easy mode. Just because it's not for you does not mean that others wouldn't enjoy it.

 

>But it matters for people who raid, and by extension - to the developers. Understand already, the game tries to offer different types of content for different types of players in order to increase the overall population.

 

Which is fine, so long as the developers do not lock specific story elements and rewards behind that content. It's fair to say "raids are not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't raid," but it is not fair to say "Envoy armor is not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't have Envoy armor," or "being able to save the underworld is not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't be able to save the underworld." Players can want to do both of those things even if they have no interest in the current balance of raiding.

 

> @"Walhalla.5473" said:

> @ Ohoni: Would like to see some examples, well could you tell me how you would change the bosses in the Forsaken Thicket for an easy mode?

 

I addressed this a little above, but basically for wing 1, Vale Guardian: Reduce damage from missing green circles, Reduce damage from standing in "death quarters," perhaps also reduce breakbar on bullet-spam. Gorseval: Reduce damage of World-Eater, cause updrafts to reset after the 4th one is burned. Sabetha: platform can never reach 0HP (but shows damage so players would be aware they "failed" it), fire wall would down not defeat players, possible some other tweaks. Possibly some across the board boss HP and damage reductions if necessary. I'm sure raiders could offer even better solutions if they were willing to do so in good faith.

 

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Extra credit also made a vid on hiw raising the game's price to 70$ instead of having microtransactions dlc etc is a good idea. That didnt really fly well.

 

I don't understand how that has anything to do with anything.

 

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> The video is nice, but you missed one point, the major point:

> Arena Net already **communicated** that Raids are meant to be difficult. That's how they are meant to be consumed, and reducing the difficulty is akin to spoiling the whole content.

 

Yes, and players have *communicated* that they would prefer an alternative. Just because the developers want the game to be played a certain way doesn't mean that this would be the best possible way for the game. The video raised a similar example, where Soma had a 3rd party mod that made the game easier, something that the developers never intended, but that proved so popular that the developer eventually decided that there was a useful role for that in the core game.

 

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

>No matter how easy you'd make raids in GW2, there's no reason to expect a majority of players to play them. Just like every part of this game apart from open world PvE, it's niche content.

 

Certainly true, but I think that *more* players would play them. I think that given what content people do play, it stands to reason that a sufficiently fun and rewarding raid would attract a much larger total population than currently play raids. Not everyone, certainly, but no mode draws in everyone, that's not the goal.

 

Btw, I'm one of those that pretty much never does Fractals. To me the barrier of entry is not difficulty, but in needing to gear up with AR-based gearing. I just have no interest in that mess. If I could jump into higher level fractals wearing orange gear, I would do it more often. Probably not the crazy high level challenge mote type stuff though, that still falls more into the "make a mistake and die" territory that I will never enjoy.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> How many play the content in general is irrelevant. Raids were developed to cater to a specific type of players, and they're doing it well. For those who find them too hard there is already other content which serves the same purpose (to keep them in the game).

 

Maybe I'm out of the loop then, which of those "other content" types offer access to Envoy armor, raid-specific weapon skins, and the stories of the Underworld and Bastion of the Penitent areas?

 

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> As I already wrote: The raid lfg is one of the most active ones in GW2. You have zero clue about raids and the playerbase.

 

It's worth noting that most of the things that people do in this game do not require looking for groups, and of those remaining, most of them involve full squads so you can cover 50+ people with a single LFG entry. LFG activity isn't the best measure of how active the community is.

[Adenin.5973]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Adenin.5973" said:

> >You're completely fine that almost no one plays raids.

>

> This statement is complete nonsense.

>

> As I already wrote: The raid lfg is one of the most active ones in GW2. You have zero clue about raids and the playerbase.

>

 

The reason the raid lfg is active is because of raid sellers and the raid groups that need far longer than other 5 man groups to fill up, especially because they require certain specific roles, with experienced players. Like the t4 cm listings in the lfg, they're there because other groups get filled within seconds and disappear. As I said before in one of my replies, the current amount of groups at a certain moment is no indication about how many ppl actually play the content.

 

It only shows how many grps haven't found enough ppl. You should've figured that out for yourself.

 

Also pls, we've discussed now enough about the never ending same things, I am really getting tired. You say no, I say yes and yet none of us has official numbers. So lets just say there's not any basis we can agree upon with this topic and therefore there's no need to discuss any details.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > > @"Adenin.5973" said:

> > >You're completely fine that almost no one plays raids.

> >

> > This statement is complete nonsense.

> >

> > As I already wrote: The raid lfg is one of the most active ones in GW2. You have zero clue about raids and the playerbase.

> >

>

> The reason the raid lfg is active is because of raid sellers and the raid groups that need far longer than other 5 man groups to fill up, especially because they require certain specific roles, with experienced players. Like the t4 cm listings in the lfg, they're there because other groups get filled within seconds and disappear. As I said before in one of my replies, the current amount of groups at a certain moment is no indication about how many ppl actually play the content.

>

> It only shows how many grps haven't found enough ppl. You should've figured that out for yourself.

>

> Also pls, we've discussed now enough about the never ending same things, I am really getting tired. You say no, I say yes and yet none of us has official numbers. So lets just say there's not any basis we can agree upon with this topic and therefore there's no need to discuss any details.

 

Don't generalize. It has a good turnaround of groups. And honestly i never had to wait that long to fill a group, even when i need 5+ people to complete.

[Adenin.5973]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Adenin.5973" said:

> > > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > > > @"Adenin.5973" said:

> > > >You're completely fine that almost no one plays raids.

> > >

> > > This statement is complete nonsense.

> > >

> > > As I already wrote: The raid lfg is one of the most active ones in GW2. You have zero clue about raids and the playerbase.

> > >

> >

> > The reason the raid lfg is active is because of raid sellers and the raid groups that need far longer than other 5 man groups to fill up, especially because they require certain specific roles, with experienced players. Like the t4 cm listings in the lfg, they're there because other groups get filled within seconds and disappear. As I said before in one of my replies, the current amount of groups at a certain moment is no indication about how many ppl actually play the content.

> >

> > It only shows how many grps haven't found enough ppl. You should've figured that out for yourself.

> >

> > Also pls, we've discussed now enough about the never ending same things, I am really getting tired. You say no, I say yes and yet none of us has official numbers. So lets just say there's not any basis we can agree upon with this topic and therefore there's no need to discuss any details.

>

> Don't generalize. It has a good turnaround of groups. And honestly i never had to wait that long to fill a group, even when i need 5+ people to complete.

 

The lfg shows only those grps that haven't found enough ppl. That's a mere fact You can't look at the raid lfg that has grps in it and say that many ppl are playing raids. Actually the more ppl are waiting for grp member in the lfg, the less people can actually start playing. And no, there's also not a clear connection between x amount of ppl playing the content and Y amount of group listings.

The amount of grp listings is very dependent on how many different roles a grp needs. The upper "limit" of the amount of different grps listed at the same time for a certain type of content is determined by how many incompatible grp compositions you can come up with for that content, so that each grp in the lfg needs to start searching individually. The amount of ppl playing the content is not what fills the lfg. That's really a misconception of how group listings come about in the first place.

 

Content that demands no specific roles/classes/specs has almost no grp listings up because grps get filled immediately. In theory (not in practice) there would be no reason for such content, why more than one grp listing would be up at the same time, except another already nearly full grp needs an additional player. That's also why almost no grps are listed for dungeons and yet if you list a grp it gets filled in <1 min. Because when ANY grp is listed for a dungeon run there's no reason why anyone would list another grp (with said exception of nearly full grps).

Again, only in theory, in practice you've exp run or lvl80 only etc

 

With raids, where you have a specific meta composition and also for different raids different roles etc, there is a reason why there would be far more than just one grp listing in the lfg. The reason is simply because if you have a grp the chances are super small that you fit perfectly to another grp that is already listed. So you list your grp also, which makes the lfg full.

 

The one thing the raid lfg tells you is, that there are still enough ppl to get several different grp listings in, listings that can't be merged, which is the reason why they were put up in the first place.

 

Also, don't talk about how you shouldn't generalize, when someone uses logic to describe how an ingame system works and then make a generalization yourself, baked up with a subjective individual experience.

[Lunateric.3708]

If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

 

If you're okay with that and consider enough people would be too to justify the effort to implement an infantile mode then go ahead and keep pushing your agenda, because it'd be worth it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Lunateric.3708" said:

> If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

 

That would probably end up being a waste of developer resources, since most players would only do it once and never again. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what they are and are not allowed to do.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Lunateric.3708" said:

> > If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

>

> That would probably end up being a waste of developer resources, since most players would only do it once and never again. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what they are and are not allowed to do.

 

They might not get to, but you know who does....

 

> @"Crystal Reid.2481" said:

> New forum, so I'll jump in with a new post on this.

>

> We won't be adding a different difficulty tier at this time. Raids need to continue to remain the most challenging content in the game, and they aren't designed to be accessible by everyone from a skill perspective. Could they be more accessible from a "finding 9 other players to play with" side? Sure. That isn't always an easy problem to solve, and any solution would detract away from the team making more raid content. We'd love to get more content out to you guys faster really.

 

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/113984#Comment_113984

 

Can we end discussion now ?

[Lunateric.3708]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Lunateric.3708" said:

> > If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

>

> That would probably end up being a waste of developer resources, since most players would only do it once and never again. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what they are and are not allowed to do.

 

devs do and devs already said repeatedly what raids stand for and what their goal is. So...

[IndigoSundown.5419]

As someone who doesn't raid, and who wouldn't raid if an easier mode were introduced, I'd rather ANet did not add an easier tier. There is no way that adding a tier would not mean either taking resources from the raid team or from somewhere else. Since we were cautioned on the old forums not to assume that adding an easy mode would be trivial, that would mean that wherever those dev resources came from would suffer, perhaps significantly. I prefer that raiders get to see raid development as it has been ongoing, and that non-raid PvE content not suffer, either. I'm sorry if that means that people who want L. Armor but won't even do the easy bosses have to do without their content of choice. However, no developer can please everyone, and maybe that ought to start with the people who could, but won't, use the existing content as intended.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Which is fine, so long as the developers do not lock specific story elements and rewards behind that content.

 

It's actually always fine. Their game, their decisions.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Adenin.5973" said:

> The reason the raid lfg is active is because of raid sellers.

 

Yeah, and those raid sellers are responsible for a lot of players to be able to pug their full clear every week. Do you really believe what you are writing here?

 

> and the raid groups that need far longer than other 5 man groups to fill up, especially because they require certain specific roles, with experienced players. Like the t4 cm listings in the lfg, they're there because other groups get filled within seconds and disappear. As I said before in one of my replies, the current amount of groups at a certain moment is no indication about how many ppl actually play the content.

 

> It only shows how many grps haven't found enough ppl. You should've figured that out for yourself.

 

Of course you need to wait longer due to the need of specific roles. Most raid bosses have a higher difficulty than everything else in the game this is why you need to look for certain roles. If that wouldn't be the case raids would be trivialized. However, how on earth are group request not a sign of an active lfg? Seriously, stop talking about things you don't have a clue about. As a single player you can easily use the lfg to get your weekly bosses down and you will be successful. There are enough groups and if not you can make your own. I'm raiding on a regular basis and I know that you are heavily wrong, it's no longer funny! (Well, it still is...)

You are arguing like those groups that haven't found enough people yet won't be successful in finding their 10 players. That's totall bullcrap. I have yet to see such a group during the usual play time.

If I take your example from fractals it would mean that CM groups never get their people for playing them. Still, I'm clearing CMs every day with or without pugs without having to wait more than 10 min., even if I'm looking for a chrono.

Plus you forget that there are a lot of static raid rosters, guilds and communities that don't have to use the lfg but are actively raiding once or twice a week or even more. You haven't even considered those in your thoughts.

 

> Also pls, we've discussed now enough about the never ending same things, I am really getting tired. You say no, I say yes and yet none of us has official numbers. So lets just say there's not any basis we can agree upon with this topic and therefore there's no need to discuss any details.

 

We have the numbers of GW2efficiency and those 100k+ registered accounts show that at least raids and fractals can be compared there. If you think that raids have too few players you should state the same for fractals. The numbers - are - there!

Also, Anet's statement was clear relating to raid popularity. There is no indication that raids don't have enough players like you said in several of your previous posts!

 

I also thank you that you will stop your false assertions by now.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> It's worth noting that most of the things that people do in this game do not require looking for groups, and of those remaining, most of them involve full squads so you can cover 50+ people with a single LFG entry. LFG activity isn't the best measure of how active the community is.

 

It was in no way used as a metric for activity in numbers by me. But I'm right with the statement that raids are actively played by the specific playerbase - on a regular basis. Otherwise the lfg would be a wastelands and we are far away from that. Every day the lfg is filled with groups. That's a clear indication that can't be denied.

 

I'm fine with everyone claiming raids are not as active as (T4) fractals although nobody has the exact numbers except Anet because I as well expect the numbers to be smaller due to being harder in terms of skilful play and organizing a 10 player squad. It would be no surprise and it also wouldn't matter for me since the target audience is a special niche one like the PvP or WvW playerbase.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Lunateric.3708" said:

> > > If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

> >

> > That would probably end up being a waste of developer resources, since most players would only do it once and never again. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what they are and are not allowed to do.

>

> They might not get to, but you know who does....

>

> > @"Crystal Reid.2481" said:

> > New forum, so I'll jump in with a new post on this.

> >

> > We won't be adding a different difficulty tier at this time. Raids need to continue to remain the most challenging content in the game, and they aren't designed to be accessible by everyone from a skill perspective. Could they be more accessible from a "finding 9 other players to play with" side? Sure. That isn't always an easy problem to solve, and any solution would detract away from the team making more raid content. We'd love to get more content out to you guys faster really.

>

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/113984#Comment_113984

>

> Can we end discussion now ?

 

Nope, not until they change their minds on that, which they are fully entitled to do at any time. The answer given above will never be taken as acceptable.

 

I'm not claiming that the devs don't agree with you, I'm pointing out why they *shouldn't.*

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Which is fine, so long as the developers do not lock specific story elements and rewards behind that content.

>

> It's actually always fine. Their game, their decisions.

 

And out choice as customers to express negative customer feedback about those decisions and hope for them to adapt. Remember that this time a few years back, there were no raids either.

 

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > It's worth noting that most of the things that people do in this game do not require looking for groups, and of those remaining, most of them involve full squads so you can cover 50+ people with a single LFG entry. LFG activity isn't the best measure of how active the community is.

>

> It was in no way used as a metric for activity in numbers by me. But I'm right with the statement that raids are actively played by the specific playerbase - on a regular basis. Otherwise the lfg would be a wastelands and we are far away from that. Every day the lfg is filled with groups. That's a clear indication that can't be denied.

 

But considering how many players *never* raid, there could always be *more* activity in them.

[CptAurellian.9537]

There could be more activity in _any_ game mode, but that's why they (raids, fractals, PvD, PvP, ...) are there in the first place. To bind a certain demographic to the game. If you suddenly change change raids to cater to open world players, you may even get some of them into raids - but that doesn't change anything for the game, they would be in for open world anyway. Yet by such a change, you are bound to lose a good chunk of the raiders sub-group from the game, creating a net loss.

 

Or, in short: Not everything needs to please everyone.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> And out choice as customers to express negative customer feedback about those decisions and hope for them to adapt. Remember that this time a few years back, there were no raids either.

 

It's not the same. Raids were actually needed - this content niche simply didn't exist in GW2 while it did in competing titles. The lower difficulty version doesn't fit the same bill. The niche already exists, in this very same game. It won't have any meaningful effect beside wasting time that could be used to create new content. Which, again, needs to be created anyway.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> There could be more activity in _any_ game mode, but that's why they (raids, fractals, PvD, PvP, ...) are there in the first place. To bind a certain demographic to the game. If you suddenly change change raids to cater to open world players, you may even get some of them into raids - but that doesn't change anything for the game, they would be in for open world anyway.

 

That's not strictly true. The thing is, people get tired of content over time. Otherwise you would just keep the launch numbers indefinitely, and inevitably expand a bit as new players would keep showing up and keep playing forever. Instead, games are based on churn, you add players, then you lose players, ideally some would come back from time to time, and ideally you gain more than you lose, or at least don't lose way more than you gain. But loss is fairly inevitable.

 

The more content you can provide a player, the more things you do to give them, the less they burn out on any one element, and the less likely they are to leave. A player might prefer open world content, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy dabbling in other things sometimes, and if you can make other content that is enticing to them, it will distract them long enough for more open world content to be produced. It probably wouldn't add players from outside, but it might *retain* players a bit more efficiently, leading to a net gain.

 

Yes, making easy modes would take some effort, would come at some cost, but since it's reusing most of the work that already went into making the raid, it should take a lot *less* work than creating an equal amount of new content from scratch. Not only that, but the work it would take would involve a certain cast of developers which would be distinct from those working on various other elements, so it's unclear exactly how much it would slow down other projects. It would not, for example, slow down teams working on new maps, because no new maps would need to be created for it. Same with enemy models. It would mainly involve work from combat/balance/mechanics designers, who may be overworked, or not, impossible to tell from out here.

 

>Or, in short: Not everything needs to please everyone.

 

Sure, which is fine, so long as there are alternate ways to earn Envoy armor and play through the story elements.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> It's not the same. Raids were actually needed - this content niche simply didn't exist in GW2 while it did in competing titles.

 

That doesn't mean that it *needed* to be included. The game also doesn't have open world PvP, fully customizable player housing, the ability to swap classes, fishing, etc. The game was in many ways better off without raiding, but now it has it, and we have to figure out how best to make that work within the game that existed before them.

 

>The lower difficulty version doesn't fit the same bill. The niche already exists, in this very same game.

 

I keep asking, but so far nobody's answered, where *is* this niche people keep talking about that allows you to earn Envoy armor and experience the story content of the raid modes without participating in the current difficulty version of raiding?

 

And I already addressed why the cost/benefit of the time it would take to produce would likely balance out.

 

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Lunateric.3708" said:

> > > > If easy raids ever become a thing it will be with them giving no rewards, as in you won't ever get envoy armor outside beating raids on their intended difficulty.

> > >

> > > That would probably end up being a waste of developer resources, since most players would only do it once and never again. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what they are and are not allowed to do.

> >

> > They might not get to, but you know who does....

> >

> > > @"Crystal Reid.2481" said:

> > > New forum, so I'll jump in with a new post on this.

> > >

> > > We won't be adding a different difficulty tier at this time. Raids need to continue to remain the most challenging content in the game, and they aren't designed to be accessible by everyone from a skill perspective. Could they be more accessible from a "finding 9 other players to play with" side? Sure. That isn't always an easy problem to solve, and any solution would detract away from the team making more raid content. We'd love to get more content out to you guys faster really.

> >

> >

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/113984#Comment_113984

> >

> > Can we end discussion now ?

>

> Nope, not until they change their minds on that, which they are fully entitled to do at any time. The answer given above will never be taken as acceptable.

>

> I'm not claiming that the devs don't agree with you, I'm pointing out why they *shouldn't.*

 

 

Something something not allowed to dictate to people who have absolute authority......

 

Except when it suits you apparently.. Odd how when the devs clearly have a standpoint and are sticking to it, you're here doing the same thing you tell others NOT to do.

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > The problem with all this is you want to trivialize mechanics which are quite fundamental to the fight itself, and by extension - the fights.

>

> Yes, and that's not a problem, it's a solution. It's the point.

>

> Players who don't want those elements trivialized can continue playing the harder versions.

>

> >Nevermind that most of then are basically new mechanics.All of them require a brand new balance, done from scratch. It's neither easy, nor fast. Not to mention the fact that you'd kill any feeling of doing something special. Facing a bloodstone-infused elementalist so powerful that he can't control his own power? Bah, we do that every day and we can like, just use healing skill, right? Facing the fallen god of death? Cakewalk. It ruins any immersion. And unlike facing the distracted fallen god of fire in PoF story, you want to just faceroll these epic-level enemies without any external help. Just because you don't feel like putting any effort.

>

> Then don't play easy mode. Just because it's not for you does not mean that others wouldn't enjoy it.

>

> >But it matters for people who raid, and by extension - to the developers. Understand already, the game tries to offer different types of content for different types of players in order to increase the overall population.

>

> Which is fine, so long as the developers do not lock specific story elements and rewards behind that content. It's fair to say "raids are not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't raid," but it is not fair to say "Envoy armor is not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't have Envoy armor," or "being able to save the underworld is not for everyone, people who don't like raiding shouldn't be able to save the underworld." Players can want to do both of those things even if they have no interest in the current balance of raiding.

>

> > @"Walhalla.5473" said:

> > @ Ohoni: Would like to see some examples, well could you tell me how you would change the bosses in the Forsaken Thicket for an easy mode?

>

> I addressed this a little above, but basically for wing 1, Vale Guardian: Reduce damage from missing green circles, Reduce damage from standing in "death quarters," perhaps also reduce breakbar on bullet-spam. Gorseval: Reduce damage of World-Eater, cause updrafts to reset after the 4th one is burned. Sabetha: platform can never reach 0HP (but shows damage so players would be aware they "failed" it), fire wall would down not defeat players, possible some other tweaks. Possibly some across the board boss HP and damage reductions if necessary. I'm sure raiders could offer even better solutions if they were willing to do so in good faith.

>

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Extra credit also made a vid on hiw raising the game's price to 70$ instead of having microtransactions dlc etc is a good idea. That didnt really fly well.

>

> I don't understand how that has anything to do with anything.

>

 

Goes to show that something that makes sense from a certain prespective isnt always the best solution. That prespective is bound to miss other equally important prespective on the subject.