On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > Since that's really the only motivator for your suggestion, it's surprising to me you only realise after being told that.

>

> I always understood it, I always based my ideas in line with that concept, I was just pointing out that the raid community seems to understand that as well. Remember, *nothing* in my proposal reduces the amount of loot to chase after, the *only* thing my proposal does is *expand* the amount of loot to chase.

>

> >Considering its positive either way, all the more important to focus more on the journey than the reward.

>

> Exactly. So if the currently available "journey" is one that you would find awful, it would be of great benefit to offer alternative paths to that destination, so whichever place you want to reach, you can choose a journey that you would actually *enjoy,* rather than one that you'd grind your way through grudgingly.

>

> >Bit weird to be surprised about whether it needs explanation when you decided it need explanation, but alright. Otherwise, the difference in content is negligible. If anything its the same content where you can just ignore more of it because it's affecting the player less. If anything its just less of the same content.

>

> Yes, but again, *most players do not raid,* and of those who do, they probably don't engage with the entire spectrum of raids (maybe beating each once and then grinding the easier or more entertaining ones). So to most players raids represent ZERO content, or at most maybe 3-5 encounters worth of content on a regular basis. To the very few players who play through all available encounters ever week, yeah, not much new added, and many tears shed in their name. But to the very many players who play zero raids per week, or maybe just a couple, there would be hours of content per week that is now within their wheelhouse, it now *exists* from their perspective. That's a lot more content added to the game than could be created from scratch for equivalent effort.

>

 

1. Its still the same amount of loot to chase. You only at more paths to it.

2. Offering other routes to the same thing has nothing to do with making a better more enjoyable journey. Its just enabling to get to the destination.

3. If raids are so bad that it may as well be zero content then no amount of tinkering will be worth it. It would just be a subpar experience. Better to make something from scratch that is a great experience that has nothing to do with raids.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Find ppl and learn/di the content with them its not that hard. Even music guilds can do it.

>

> But that still requires other people. We need solo raids (with the same mechanics so you can train for normal mode!).

 

I don't think solo would be realistic, many of the encounters absolutely require multiple players, and changing actual mechanics would be outside the scope of this concept. The point is to make them casually puggable, not "if you get a group to train diligently enough then you might eventually manage"able.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Then go ahead and buy it if you want it that much?

 

I would buy the armor, for a reasonable price, I will never "buy" raid entries. Understand that distinction or not, I honestly do not care.

 

>And no, skins work pretty kitten well as rewards in video games. What else do you propose? Liquid gold? Vendor trash?

 

The skins would remain rewards. People would still have to work hard to get them. All I propose is widening the options available in *how* you work toward them. Now as for *exclusive* rewards, that would be like medals and trophies, something that denoate accomplishment without actually being useful for anything else. Titles, nametag flairs, trophy bundles you can show off, etc.

 

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

>Its still the same amount of loot to chase. You only at more paths to it.

 

It's more loot to chase *per person.* Most players don't WANT to play every aspect of the game. Of those that do have the interest, most don't have the time. Items that are locked behind content you'd never do may as well not exist to most players. Making them available in more content puts them on the practical radar, ergo, "more rewards."

 

>Offering other routes to the same thing has nothing to do with making a better more enjoyable journey. Its just enabling to get to the destination.

 

Say there was a really cool thing that you really wanted. I offer you one way to get that thing, crawl through a pool filled with glass shards. Seems unpleasant to me, but who am I to judge? Anyway, let's say that seemed unpleasant to you as well. I offer you a second path, walk around the pool, and you can also get the item you wanted. Now which, to you, seems like the more pleasant journey? Offering multiple paths doesn't guarantee that you'll enjoy any of them, but it does make it more *likely* that you'll be able to find at least one that you can enjoy.

 

>If raids are so bad that it may as well be zero content then no amount of tinkering will be worth it.

 

Of course it would. Removing the elements that make it so awful make all the difference. Take all the glass shards out of that pool above, and it wouldn't be so bad to cross through. The exact elements being removed are the ones that present a barrier of entry to many players. After removing them, they no longer have any reason to avoid the content, and can then enjoy it. Obviously those who enjoy it the way it is might not enjoy the new version as much, but that's ok, because they still have the existing version. This is not about them.

 

>Better to make something from scratch that is a great experience that has nothing to do with raids.

 

Better, perhaps, but far more work. They can do this in considerably less time than it would take to create equivalent amounts of completely new content.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> The skins would remain rewards. People would still have to work hard to get them. All I propose is widening the options available in *how* you work toward them.

 

It's an illusion. People will go for the easier option. Meaning if you make an alternative, which is more accessible, you'd rob the raids of their population by increasing their lfg times and such. You'll essentially be replacing fun content with grind, which will end up in hardcore players quitting the game.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Now as for *exclusive* rewards, that would be like medals and trophies, something that denoate accomplishment without actually being useful for anything else. Titles, nametag flairs, trophy bundles you can show off, etc.

 

So nothing remotely useful. Now consider this from the viewpoint of someone who **isn't** already an active raider. What's the incentive to even try this content? Spend lots of time in LFG, get kicked from squads because you have no clue how the encounters work, learn about the training runs, join some, fail over and over and over... to receive what? Useless trophy? Some flair nobody cares about? Get real. The Envoy armor not only gives an incentive to try raiding. The collections also give a sense of progress which is immensely helpful to keep you motivated. It's an invaluable tool for getting players into raiding. It's how I started myself, by saying "let's try this, I'd really like to have my main fully clad in legendary gear". But it only works as long as it is something useful you can't get otherwise. Because if you could, you wouldn't have any motivation to go through the barrier of entry.

 

Edit:

Just to clarify things a bit, because my choice of words might be confusing. It's really about motivation. The reward should be able to motivate the people, to get them through the barrier of entry and into the content. When I'm saying "useful", I really mean "something the players would want badly enough". You'll never get the same level of motivation, across as many players, with something as irrelevant as you propose.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > Find ppl and learn/di the content with them its not that hard. Even music guilds can do it.

> >

> > But that still requires other people. We need solo raids (with the same mechanics so you can train for normal mode!).

>

> I don't think solo would be realistic, many of the encounters absolutely require multiple players, and changing actual mechanics would be outside the scope of this concept. The point is to make them casually puggable, not "if you get a group to train diligently enough then you might eventually manage"able.

 

Good thing that is already possible. There is a music guild that raids successfully (Cmaj). Everyone can raid if he wants to put the effort into it. That is true for all content, you need to put in some effort to play it. Some content requires more effort than other. If you don't want to put in the effort you don't play it. Simple concept.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > The skins would remain rewards. People would still have to work hard to get them. All I propose is widening the options available in *how* you work toward them.

>

> It's an illusion. People will go for the easier option. Meaning if you make an alternative, which is more accessible, you'd rob the raids of their population by increasing their lfg times and such. You'll essentially be replacing fun content with grind, which will end up in hardcore players quitting the game.

 

First, if people prefer the easier version, then nobody owes you them existing in the harder mode, making it easier for you to find groups. Let them play where they want to play. Second, people keep insisting that people actually ENJOY raiding, that's the entire reason they exist in the first place, so if players would flock to an easier mode if it existed, then maybe the question should be why keep supporting the harder version at all? Third, the intended balance would be such that players who could clear the harder mode *would find it to be the most efficient path.* Rewards would be balanced so that players who could realiably clear hard mode and enjoyed doing so would NOT move to the easier mode, because it would provide reduced rewards per unit of time. Basically if you can do hard mode, you'd have no reason not to.

 

> So nothing remotely useful.

 

Skins aren't "remotely useful" either, but we like them anyway. If the point is to say "I have done this thing!" then what is the difference between a skin, or a nametag flair that makes that point?

 

>Now consider this from the viewpoint of someone who **isn't** already an active raider. What's the incentive to even try this content? Spend lots of time in LFG, get kicked from squads because you have no clue how the encounters work, learn about the training runs, join some, fail over and over and over... to receive what? Useless trophy? Some flair nobody cares about?

 

Well, I have one question for your hypothetical player. Do you WANT to raid? Does everything you mentioned there sound FUN to you?

 

If so, then raid, no reason not to.

 

But if not, then you **shouldn't be given any reason to raid, because you should not be raiding.**

 

If players would not raid without being bribed into raiding, then they should not be bribed into raiding and therefore should not raid. Simple as that. The only people who should even consider raiding are those for whom raiding seems like their cup of tea. We have already more than addressed the idea of a "trial reward," however.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Good thing that is already possible.

 

**The point is to make them casually puggable, not "if you get a group to train diligently enough then you might eventually manage"able.**

 

>Everyone can raid if he wants to put the effort into it. That is true for all content, you need to put in some effort to play it. Some content requires more effort than other. If you don't want to put in the effort you don't play it. Simple concept.

 

And the entire point of this thread is to advocate for a version that requires less effort to "git gud" enough to clear it. Simple concept. You don't have to agree with it, but don't insult us both by continuing to pretend that you don't understand it.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > The skins would remain rewards. People would still have to work hard to get them. All I propose is widening the options available in *how* you work toward them.

> >

> > It's an illusion. People will go for the easier option. Meaning if you make an alternative, which is more accessible, you'd rob the raids of their population by increasing their lfg times and such. You'll essentially be replacing fun content with grind, which will end up in hardcore players quitting the game.

>

> First, if people prefer the easier version, then nobody owes you them existing in the harder mode, making it easier for you to find groups. Let them play where they want to play. Second, people keep insisting that people actually ENJOY raiding, that's the entire reason they exist in the first place, so if players would flock to an easier mode if it existed, then maybe the question should be why keep supporting the harder version at all? Third, the intended balance would be such that players who could clear the harder mode *would find it to be the most efficient path.* Rewards would be balanced so that players who could realiably clear hard mode and enjoyed doing so would NOT move to the easier mode, because it would provide reduced rewards per unit of time. Basically if you can do hard mode, you'd have no reason not to.

>

> > So nothing remotely useful.

>

> Skins aren't "remotely useful" either, but we like them anyway. If the point is to say "I have done this thing!" then what is the difference between a skin, or a nametag flair that makes that point?

>

> >Now consider this from the viewpoint of someone who **isn't** already an active raider. What's the incentive to even try this content? Spend lots of time in LFG, get kicked from squads because you have no clue how the encounters work, learn about the training runs, join some, fail over and over and over... to receive what? Useless trophy? Some flair nobody cares about?

>

> Well, I have one question for your hypothetical player. Do you WANT to raid? Does everything you mentioned there sound FUN to you?

>

> If so, then raid, no reason not to.

>

> But if not, then you **shouldn't be given any reason to raid, because you should not be raiding.**

>

> If players would not raid without being bribed into raiding, then they should not be bribed into raiding and therefore should not raid. Simple as that. The only people who should even consider raiding are those for whom raiding seems like their cup of tea. We have already more than addressed the idea of a "trial reward," however.

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > Good thing that is already possible.

>

> **The point is to make them casually puggable, not "if you get a group to train diligently enough then you might eventually manage"able.**

>

> >Everyone can raid if he wants to put the effort into it. That is true for all content, you need to put in some effort to play it. Some content requires more effort than other. If you don't want to put in the effort you don't play it. Simple concept.

>

> And the entire point of this thread is to advocate for a version that requires less effort to "git gud" enough to clear it. Simple concept. You don't have to agree with it, but don't insult us both by continuing to pretend that you don't understand it.

 

Good job ignoring my explanation.

 

Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them. I didn't know I enjoy WvW until I tried it. In both cases, I tried them looking for an *exclusive* reward. Coincidence? Or just good game design? I'm going to bet you'll say "coincidence".

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> >Its still the same amount of loot to chase. You only at more paths to it.

>

> It's more loot to chase *per person.* Most players don't WANT to play every aspect of the game. Of those that do have the interest, most don't have the time. Items that are locked behind content you'd never do may as well not exist to most players. Making them available in more content puts them on the practical radar, ergo, "more rewards."

 

Its still the same amount of rewards, no matter how you twist it. Refusing to play the game as intended doesn't make it less rewards.

 

> >Offering other routes to the same thing has nothing to do with making a better more enjoyable journey. Its just enabling to get to the destination.

>

> Say there was a really cool thing that you really wanted. I offer you one way to get that thing, crawl through a pool filled with glass shards. Seems unpleasant to me, but who am I to judge? Anyway, let's say that seemed unpleasant to you as well. I offer you a second path, walk around the pool, and you can also get the item you wanted. Now which, to you, seems like the more pleasant journey? Offering multiple paths doesn't guarantee that you'll enjoy any of them, but it does make it more *likely* that you'll be able to find at least one that you can enjoy.

 

Raids are in no way equivalent to such torture, what a ridiculous analogy.

 

> >If raids are so bad that it may as well be zero content then no amount of tinkering will be worth it.

>

> Of course it would. Removing the elements that make it so awful make all the difference. Take all the glass shards out of that pool above, and it wouldn't be so bad to cross through. The exact elements being removed are the ones that present a barrier of entry to many players. After removing them, they no longer have any reason to avoid the content, and can then enjoy it. Obviously those who enjoy it the way it is might not enjoy the new version as much, but that's ok, because they still have the existing version. This is not about them.

 

Well that just means raids arent the zero content you made it out to be. You're just contradicting yourself.

 

> >Better to make something from scratch that is a great experience that has nothing to do with raids.

>

> Better, perhaps, but far more work. They can do this in considerably less time than it would take to create equivalent amounts of completely new content.

 

Quantity over quality. Interesting. You rather have lots of new bad content than good content.

That explains alot.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Good job ignoring my explanation.

 

Not "ignoring," "disagreeing."

 

> Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them.

 

As I have said several times in this thread, I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted.

 

What was that you were saying about "ignoring what other people were saying?"

[FrizzFreston.5290]

doublepost

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> Its still the same amount of rewards, no matter how you twist it. Refusing to play the game as intended doesn't make it less rewards.

 

But again, *to a player who currently does not raid,* raids currently offer them ZERO rewards.

 

After this change, if raids are made playable by those players, it would add a TON of new rewards that they could now meaningfully pursue.

 

And for those that do raid, it would open up a ton of new rewards that weren't available in raids before, from other parts of the game.

 

The only people who would genuinely see NO new rewards from this would be people who already do ALL the modes in the game, which is a relatively tiny chunk of the community.

 

>Raids are in no way equivalent to such torture, what a ridiculous analogy.

 

That's subjective. You may disagree with the form of the analogy, but you still haven't addressed the point being made by it.

 

>Well that just means raids arent the zero content you made it out to be. You're just contradicting yourself.

 

Raids in their *current* form are zero content for a lot of players, because a lot of players will not participate in them in their current form. **if modified,** however, to make them more palatable to those players, they become valid content.

 

>Quantity over quality. Interesting. You rather have lots of new bad content than good content.

>That explains alot.

 

So you're saying raids are bad content. That explains a lot.

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Good job ignoring my explanation.

>

> Not "ignoring," "disagreeing."

>

> > Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them.

>

> As I have said several times in this thread, I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted.

>

> What was that you were saying about "ignoring what other people were saying?"

 

Not ignoring, disagreeing. Except with actual arguments.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

 

 

> And the entire point of this thread is to advocate for a version that requires less effort to "git gud" enough to clear it. Simple concept. You don't have to agree with it, but don't insult us both by continuing to pretend that you don't understand it.

 

And you don't understand that raids are fine. Everyone who wants to do raids can do it. Most people choose willingly to not participate and most won't participate after the changes. They will do it once, see that they are still not for them and leave. You can't change the core concept behind it.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

>

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > the medal/trophy also has a look people could want which is what i meant.

>

> Do you genuinely believe that, or are you just making a disingenuous argument? Do you really believe that people would wear Olympic medals around if not for the prestige they carry, or that people would put random Oscars on their shelves when everyone was aware they did nothing to earn it? I mean you *can* get replicas of any of those things if you wanted them, but I don't see many people bothering. I don't think someone could honestly claim that these items have actual aesthetic appeal beyond the accomplishment they are intended to represent, and again, in the real world, if you really *do* believe that, you have options available other than earning one legitimately.

 

But their are people buying gold medals. Their is a visual factor to it (Otherwise people could give rocks with their name on it instead of a medal.)

 

> >Their are very expensive medals also btw for which the best example would be the once from the olympics in bejing.

>

> An Olympic gold medal contains about $600 in gold. That's not nothing, but there are way more people who could afford $600 in gold than that can earn an Olympic gold medal in any sport. The value is not in the item itself. Not to mention that you could make a perfectly accurate fake gold medal for a fraction of that cost.

 

A big part of the value comes from the achievement true. But their is a factor which is not the achievement which was my point. A visual, a material and the achievement.

The value of the original would decrease if replica's are made btw. Which is what the whole debate comes down to. Do you think a Olympic gold medal winner would be happy if I gave a replica to every single person in the world? Or if every participant got a gold medal before starting? Or if the golden medal for archery is given to the sprinter.

 

> >mostly if somebody says something is purely positive it just means they haven't seen the bad things yet.

>

> Or that they don't believe that "the bad things" are actually bad.

 

So they don't see the bad things thanks for confirming. Their are no purely positive changes never somebody or something will be worse of. So it's always the point if the bad things are worth the good things.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > Good job ignoring my explanation.

> >

> > Not "ignoring," "disagreeing."

> >

> > > Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them.

> >

> > As I have said several times in this thread, I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted.

> >

> > What was that you were saying about "ignoring what other people were saying?"

>

> Not ignoring, disagreeing. Except with actual arguments.

 

There's a distinction though. I've repeatedly said in this thread something along the lines of ", I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted. "

 

Yes, even though I have made myself clear on that point several times, you did not present a counter-argument to that point. Instead, you ignored it, saying "Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them."

 

That is not a point on which we disagree. Where we disagree seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong here, in the area of "how much should players have to experience before they are allowed to judge whether they do enjoy it or not?" and in "what punishments are appropriate should they decide that they do not, in fact, enjoy that content?"

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>And you don't understand that raids are fine.

 

Raids are fine for a small subset of players. And Anet seems to be fine that only a small subset of players are fine with raids. But it can be *so much more than that.*

 

> Everyone who wants to do raids can do it.

 

Everyone who wants to do them in their current form can, but not everyone does, and some changes could greatly broaden that group out.

 

>Most people choose willingly to not participate and most won't participate after the changes. They will do it once, see that they are still not for them and leave. You can't change the core concept behind it.

 

I'm not looking to change the core concept, I'm looking to change the barriers to entry. I'm removing or greatly reducing a lot of the reasons why people don't currently play it, so OF COURSE that would change the population that would participate in it. Think of it like you make a really fantastic pizza, but you ONLY serve your pizzas with anchovies on them, every single slice. Now you have a handful of loyal customers, they like anchovies and they like your pizza, but there are also a ton of people who might enjoy everything about your pizzas *except* the anchovies. If you sold a pizza without the anchovies, as an option, then suddenly a much larger number of customers would try your pizza, decide that it definitely *was* for them, and continue to buy your pizzas. But also continue to never want anchovies on them. And for the loyal customers who *do* like anchovies? They can continue buying their own pizzas with anchovies on them, no problem.

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > The skins would remain rewards. People would still have to work hard to get them. All I propose is widening the options available in *how* you work toward them.

> >

> > It's an illusion. People will go for the easier option. Meaning if you make an alternative, which is more accessible, you'd rob the raids of their population by increasing their lfg times and such. You'll essentially be replacing fun content with grind, which will end up in hardcore players quitting the game.

>

> First, if people prefer the easier version, then nobody owes you them existing in the harder mode, making it easier for you to find groups. Let them play where they want to play. Second, people keep insisting that people actually ENJOY raiding, that's the entire reason they exist in the first place, so if players would flock to an easier mode if it existed, then maybe the question should be why keep supporting the harder version at all? Third, the intended balance would be such that players who could clear the harder mode *would find it to be the most efficient path.* Rewards would be balanced so that players who could realiably clear hard mode and enjoyed doing so would NOT move to the easier mode, because it would provide reduced rewards per unit of time. Basically if you can do hard mode, you'd have no reason not to.

>

 

Every single gamemode would eventually collapse if people wouldn't be "bribed" into it. Imagine if nothing gave rewards how populated would the game be?

 

Being fun or not fun is not a black and with thing you know. People will most of the time choose the path for which they would play the game the least, so from your logic we should just stop supporting the game at all?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

>A big part of the value comes from the achievement true. But their is a factor which is not the achievement which was my point. A visual, a material and the achievement.

 

Yes, but it is a negligible factor, the icing on the cake. You talk about "gold medal *winner* Usain Bolt," not "gold medal *owner* Fred Johnson." Olympic medals are not some fashion accessory that non-Olympians wear around just because they like the look of it. You only wear a medal if you want to convince people that you won it.

 

I get your point, I just dispute that it's a vital part of the process. Have the cool reward that you can get from doing the content (ie the skin) and have the cool thing that denotes that you definitely accomplished a difficult task (ie the nametag flair or whatever), but they don't necessarily have to be the SAME thing, and not wanting to complete that specific task should not prevent players from being able to have the skin that they want.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> Every single gamemode would eventually collapse if people wouldn't be "bribed" into it. Imagine if nothing gave rewards how populated would the game be?

 

Again though, that has nothing to do with what we;'re talking about here.

 

Rewards are ONLY being added, NO rewards are being removed.

 

Every game mode would continue to offer rewards, they would just offer MORE reward variety.

 

People would still be playing, still earning things, same as now.

 

The ONLY difference is that if you have Content A, B, and C, players would no longer be bribed into playing Content A *instead* of B or C. If they *want* to play B or C, then they would be allowed to do so. Developers should not bribe players *away* from aspects of the game that those players enjoy. There is no benefit to that. If all content rewards fairly relative to the time and effort they require, and players just avoid Content C completely, then that is not a sign that Content C needs unique rewards to bribe players into putting up with it, it's a sign that Content C needs some serious changes to it so that people WANT to play it, rather than spending their time at Content A or B.

 

> Being fun or not fun is not a black and with thing you know. People will most of the time choose the path for which they would play the game the least, so from your logic we should just stop supporting the game at all?

 

Players will choose to play the activities that they most enjoy doing. We should be encouraging that and rewarding that, not trying to force them toward content that they know they do not enjoy.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > > Good job ignoring my explanation.

> > >

> > > Not "ignoring," "disagreeing."

> > >

> > > > Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them.

> > >

> > > As I have said several times in this thread, I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted.

> > >

> > > What was that you were saying about "ignoring what other people were saying?"

> >

> > Not ignoring, disagreeing. Except with actual arguments.

>

> There's a distinction though. I've repeatedly said in this thread something along the lines of ", I do see a value in having some exclusive items that are buried shallowly enough in content that it gets people to **try** content outside their comfort zone, yet not buried so deeply that they have to keep playing once they've determined that they do not enjoy it. At a certain point, you just have to let the players make decisions *for themselves,* and not punishing them for that by forcing them to abandon their progress towards something they clearly wanted. "

>

> Yes, even though I have made myself clear on that point several times, you did not present a counter-argument to that point. Instead, you ignored it, saying "Also, you can only guess your attitude toward content you haven't tried and your guess will often be wrong. I didn't know I enjoy raids until I tried them."

>

> That is not a point on which we disagree. Where we disagree seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong here, in the area of "how much should players have to experience before they are allowed to judge whether they do enjoy it or not?" and in "what punishments are appropriate should they decide that they do not, in fact, enjoy that content?"

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >And you don't understand that raids are fine.

>

> Raids are fine for a small subset of players. And Anet seems to be fine that only a small subset of players are fine with raids. But it can be *so much more than that.*

>

> > Everyone who wants to do raids can do it.

>

> Everyone who wants to do them in their current form can, but not everyone does, and some changes could greatly broaden that group out.

>

> >Most people choose willingly to not participate and most won't participate after the changes. They will do it once, see that they are still not for them and leave. You can't change the core concept behind it.

>

> I'm not looking to change the core concept, I'm looking to change the barriers to entry. I'm removing or greatly reducing a lot of the reasons why people don't currently play it, so OF COURSE that would change the population that would participate in it. Think of it like you make a really fantastic pizza, but you ONLY serve your pizzas with anchovies on them, every single slice. Now you have a handful of loyal customers, they like anchovies and they like your pizza, but there are also a ton of people who might enjoy everything about your pizzas *except* the anchovies. If you sold a pizza without the anchovies, as an option, then suddenly a much larger number of customers would try your pizza, decide that it definitely *was* for them, and continue to buy your pizzas. But also continue to never want anchovies on them. And for the loyal customers who *do* like anchovies? They can continue buying their own pizzas with anchovies on them, no problem.

>

 

The entry barrier doesn't get any lower than GW2 already has. You need a max level charakter, preferably exotic or higher and the corresponding expansion. If there are so many people who want to try it but can't because of the entry barrier why don't they form their own group and try it?

You also just proved my point with your analogy. People that don't like raids now won't like them in an easier form. They prefer other parts of PvE and that's fine. Trying to appeal to players who don't like it in the first place will fail.

 

Succeeding has nothing to do with an entry barrier.

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > Every single gamemode would eventually collapse if people wouldn't be "bribed" into it. Imagine if nothing gave rewards how populated would the game be?

>

> Again though, that has nothing to do with what we;'re talking about here.

>

> Rewards are ONLY being added, NO rewards are being removed.

>

> Every game mode would continue to offer rewards, they would just offer MORE reward variety.

>

> People would still be playing, still earning things, same as now.

>

> The ONLY difference is that if you have Content A, B, and C, players would no longer be bribed into playing Content A *instead* of B or C. If they *want* to play B or C, then they would be allowed to do so. Developers should not bribe players *away* from aspects of the game that those players enjoy. There is no benefit to that. If all content rewards fairly relative to the time and effort they require, and players just avoid Content C completely, then that is not a sign that Content C needs unique rewards to bribe players into putting up with it, it's a sign that Content C needs some serious changes to it so that people WANT to play it, rather than spending their time at Content A or B.

>

 

You're totally missing the point i'm making. If only gamemode A gave rewards very few people would play mode B and C. This doesn't mean that B or C are bad modes. This point is to refute the claim that raids for some reason would be bad content because few people would play it if they could get rewards elsewhere.

 

> > Being fun or not fun is not a black and with thing you know. People will most of the time choose the path for which they would play the game the least, so from your logic we should just stop supporting the game at all?

>

> Players will choose to play the activities that they most enjoy doing. We should be encouraging that and rewarding that, not trying to force them toward content that they know they do not enjoy.

 

No, players will chose the activity which they think they will enjoy/ rewards them more. Which is quite a big destinction. People most of the time want to play the game less. just look at the recent thread about infusions on exotics.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> It *can't* be a sign of achievement if it's common.

A yellow t-shirt. A relatively common item. When you see someone in one, you don't think immediately that this person is a current leader in a bicycle race (because almost certainly they aren't). Yet, it in no way devalues the worth of receiving it in said race. Because the achievement (and the glory) does not lie in obtaining the item. It lies in being the best. Which you are (or are not) regardless of whether you're in posession of the reward.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> The value of the original would decrease if replica's are made btw. Which is what the whole debate comes down to. Do you think a Olympic gold medal winner would be happy if I gave a replica to every single person in the world?

Happy? Probably not. Would he even care? Also probably not. Because (again) the true worth of victory is does not lie in small pieces of colored metal.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> No, players will chose the activity which they think they will enjoy/ rewards them more. Which is quite a big destinction. People most of the time want to play the game less.

No. They just prefer to use their game time on things they like more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

Just think, _all_ this could have been avoided if they'd just given a non-raid PVE route for legendary armor in the first place. You know, like legendary weapons.

 

But Anet knew full well that raiding would be unpopular (by design!), so they locked legendary armor behind it to strongarm people into raiding who otherwise wouldn't want to.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > Its still the same amount of rewards, no matter how you twist it. Refusing to play the game as intended doesn't make it less rewards.

>

> But again, *to a player who currently does not raid,* raids currently offer them ZERO rewards.

 

Thats rather obvious. If I dont do any content that content doesnt give me rewards.

 

> >Raids are in no way equivalent to such torture, what a ridiculous analogy.

>

> That's subjective. You may disagree with the form of the analogy, but you still haven't addressed the point being made by it.

Theres no point to be made by it. Do you want your hand chopped off or do you want to walk to the other side of the room to gain object X? I can pose unequivalent questions with obvious answers too. Doesnt mean that makes a point.

 

> >Well that just means raids arent the zero content you made it out to be. You're just contradicting yourself.

>

> Raids in their *current* form are zero content for a lot of players, because a lot of players will not participate in them in their current form. **if modified,** however, to make them more palatable to those players, they become valid content.

"You may not like this content, but at least you can pass it."

 

> >Quantity over quality. Interesting. You rather have lots of new bad content than good content.

> >That explains alot.

>

> So you're saying raids are bad content. That explains a lot.

If you draw that conclusion from what I say, that would mean you want raids.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> Just think, _all_ this could have been avoided if they'd just given a non-raid PVE route for legendary armor in the first place. You know, like legendary weapons.

>

> But Anet knew full well that raiding would be unpopular (by design!), so they locked legendary armor behind it to strongarm people into raiding who otherwise wouldn't want to.

 

No it wouldn't. No raider is against legendary armor in other parts of the game (see WvW and PvP armor, no outcry). The whole discussion is about the skin of the raid armor, not the color. And the skin should stay raid only.

[yann.1946]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > The value of the original would decrease if replica's are made btw. Which is what the whole debate comes down to. Do you think a Olympic gold medal winner would be happy if I gave a replica to every single person in the world?

> Happy? Probably not. Would he even care? Also probably not. Because (again) the true worth of victory is does not lie in small pieces of colored metal.

 

I ask again then if the look doesn't matter why do they give anything at all? Or not just an ugly rock with the name on it?

 

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > No, players will chose the activity which they think they will enjoy/ rewards them more. Which is quite a big destinction. People most of the time want to play the game less.

> No. They just prefer to use their game time on things they like more.

>

 

I think you should try to look at human psychology a little more. To give a reasonable example why do people still play the HOT meta's while almost all POF events are much less done? If what you say is true people would play POF more solely based on the reactions in the first few days.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > It *can't* be a sign of achievement if it's common.

> A yellow t-shirt. A relatively common item. When you see someone in one, you don't think immediately that this person is a current leader in a bicycle race (because almost certainly they aren't). Yet, it in no way devalues the worth of receiving it in said race. Because the achievement (and the glory) does not lie in obtaining the item. It lies in being the best. Which you are (or are not) regardless of whether you're in posession of the reward.

>

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > The value of the original would decrease if replica's are made btw. Which is what the whole debate comes down to. Do you think a Olympic gold medal winner would be happy if I gave a replica to every single person in the world?

> Happy? Probably not. Would he even care? Also probably not. Because (again) the true worth of victory is does not lie in small pieces of colored metal.

 

These examples treat the "be the best" achievement. Envoy is really "be good enough", which more than one person can fulfill. When it is "be the best", you know all others are fake. Not the case here, though. And this means both that you can't know if the person you meet was "good enough", and that they don't know the same about you.