On difficulty modes (Game Maker's Toolkit)

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> The entry barrier doesn't get any lower than GW2 already has.

 

You know for a fact that this is not true. The entire topic of discussion for this thread is a version of raiding that would clearly offer a lower barrier of entry. Now, you can dispute that a lower barrier of entry is not *necessary,* for you, but it's impossible to argue that one could not exist.

 

> 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.

 

Again, people that don't like raids now, don't like them because of the barrier of entry. Remove that barrier of entry, and at least some of them will enjoy it. You cannot possibly argue otherwise in good faith. There are plenty of people who play the game right now, who do not raid because they do not like the high risk of failure, do not like the difficulty of building an adequate team in a reasonable amount of time, do not like having to rely on potentially unreliable randos. Making the mode easier would eliminate these problems. It would greatly lower the risk of failures and it would make it much easier to throw together a team capable of completing the task in a reasonable amount of time. It would turn the activity from a chore into something that is pure entertainment.

 

Again, none of this has to apply to you, but you must accept as a fact that it would apply to others. The only opnion you can have on this matter is whether or not you believe that these others *should* have the mode that they would prefer, not whether they exist, not whether they actually would enjoy this mode.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> 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.

 

Obviously, which is why you give all three modes rewards, and you make all three rewards fair to the time and effort they take to complete. They don't need to be unique rewards though. If you prefer Content B, you shouldn't have to play Content A anyway just because it is the only place to get something you want. It can be the *best* place to get that thing, but shouldn't be the *only* place.

 

>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.

 

If people want to play a game less, it's because they are enjoying it less. If they are enjoying it less, then they *should* be playing it less. The solution is to make the game more fun to play, not to ramp up the bribes. And again, the goal here would be to NOT have any modes where it would require less play to achieve a result. Some modes might require less skill and attention, but those would take more time and repetition. Some might require less time and repetition, but would require higher skill and attention. An easy mode raid, for example, would be easier to play, but would take longer to accumulate the same rewards as in the hard mode, because the reward pacing would be adjusted downward. If someone is only interested in getting the rewards ASAP, and genuinely has no personal preference as to hard or easy raids, then hard mode would be the shortest path available to them.

 

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> 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.

 

I would prefer to walk to the other side of the room, but to each his own. Some people like to raid.

 

>> 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."

 

Again, the "not passing it" part is WHY a lot of people don't enjoy it. If you remove that part, then they CAN enjoy what's left. I'm not saying that people would now grind out raids they aren't enjoying, I'm saying they would actually ENJOY the new versions, in a way that they never could with the current ones.

 

You didn't like the pool analogy, well what about this one: 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.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> Again, the "not passing it" part is WHY a lot of people don't enjoy it. If you remove that part, then they CAN enjoy what's left. I'm not saying that people would now grind out raids they aren't enjoying, I'm saying they would actually ENJOY the new versions, in a way that they never could with the current ones.

>

> You didn't like the pool analogy, well what about this one: 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.

 

While that is a better analogy, there is a large part of the game out there that basically is this pizza without anchovies. You're mostly arguing to get the anchovies pizza without the anchovies, you're probably better of picking a different one that suits your desires. You don't need a raid easy mode as there already is tons of content that you enjoy.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

>While that is a better analogy, there is a large part of the game out there that basically is this pizza without anchovies.

 

Sure, but that falls outside the scope of the analogy. If you really want to discuss that, let's say that this is a restaurant that also offers a wide menu, spaghetti, subs, lasagna, chicken parm, etc. If you want *pizza,* however, you can only get it one way. Some people might know that they enjoy pizza, know from what they've tasted of that pizza that they would probably enjoy it very much if it didn't have those anchovies on it, and are therefore disappointed that they don't have the option of an anchovy-free version.

 

In any case, the *purpose* of the analogy was to point out the flaw in the argument "if you don't like this thing as it is now, then you never can like it in any form." That's patently preposterous. I continue to assert that while a great many people will never enjoy raids *as they stand today,* that in no way makes any sort of case that they could never enjoy it if it were *modified* to remove the specific portions that currently drive them away from the game mode. Raids in their current form definitely have barriers to them, barriers that may not matter to you, but that definitely do matter to a lot of players. Removing those barriers would remove the reasons that these players do not enjoy the mode, and therefore they could enjoy it. Again, you don't have to agree that this is the *best* path to take, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the path does not even exist.

 

 

 

[runeblade.7514]

If Raids had an assist mode, then I doubt normal raid mode would die out. I still see 99/100 CM being listed and, No one is flocking to T2 because it is easy.

 

If Fractals never had a difficulty tier in the first place, and set T4 as standard. I could not be able to join a group because the group would require me to learn the fractal in the first place.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> >While that is a better analogy, there is a large part of the game out there that basically is this pizza without anchovies.

>

> Sure, but that falls outside the scope of the analogy. If you really want to discuss that, let's say that this is a restaurant that also offers a wide menu, spaghetti, subs, lasagna, chicken parm, etc. If you want *pizza,* however, you can only get it one way. Some people might know that they enjoy pizza, know from what they've tasted of that pizza that they would probably enjoy it very much if it didn't have those anchovies on it, and are therefore disappointed that they don't have the option of an anchovy-free version.

>

> In any case, the *purpose* of the analogy was to point out the flaw in the argument "if you don't like this thing as it is now, then you never can like it in any form." That's patently preposterous. I continue to assert that while a great many people will never enjoy raids *as they stand today,* that in no way makes any sort of case that they could never enjoy it if it were *modified* to remove the specific portions that currently drive them away from the game mode. Raids in their current form definitely have barriers to them, barriers that may not matter to you, but that definitely do matter to a lot of players. Removing those barriers would remove the reasons that these players do not enjoy the mode, and therefore they could enjoy it. Again, you don't have to agree that this is the *best* path to take, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the path does not even exist.

 

I never really said that, that's just a strawman argument. I merely said that it's not content people like and if you actually knew what raids are you would know there isn't much in terms of content in them other than the mechanics and boundaries to overcome. Taking those away it's pretty much subpar content, which you encourage ArenaNet should make, just so they can pass it and gain the rewards. You don't want good content, you don't care whether it affects already good content, you still purely just want the rewards and hide it behind a facade of a subpar easy mode which really is just a crappy suggestion to begin with.

 

And your comment that it's intellectually dishonest (purely a statement to throw some negative words together without any coherence but let's go with it) to pretend that paths don't even exist. Your whole statement is based pretending paths don't exist. "Oh but raids don't even exist to players who don't like it, oh but raid rewards don't exists to players who don't like it Oh you can't just go into the game right now and start raiding." If you want to call that intellectual dishonest, be my guest.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> I never really said that, that's just a strawman argument.

 

I believe you've made arguments to that effect, as have several other posters over the last page, that even if an easy mode were made, players that do not currently enjoy raiding still would not actually enjoy the easier version of it. I believe that notion is ridiculous.

 

>I merely said that it's not content people like and if you actually knew what raids are you would know there isn't much in terms of content in them other than the mechanics and boundaries to overcome.

 

As I've said, I am aware of what they contain, I believe that's plenty in comparison to other content in the game, IF the barriers involved were not so onerous.

 

*My own personal impression* of the raid content is that it does look to be fun to play, IF the inherent frustrations were removed that if you miss certain mechanics the entire party wipes and you have to start from scratch. Much higher up the thread I discussed a comparison between Cuphead, in which failing mechanics leads to having to restart the entire stage from scratch, to Super Meatboy, in which failing a challenge only sets you can a very short distance, and allows you to try again.

 

To me, one of the primary elements of raids in their current form is how if anyone in the party makes a significant error, it can waste 5-10 minutes of effort, and force everyone to try again. Some enjoy that, and that's fine, but I certainly never will. If you offered the same mechanics, but without that failure condition and punishment mechanism, then I would enjoy engaging those mechanics. I would feel good if I managed to complete all the skill checks that I set out to complete, without feeling annoyed and frustrated if someone else drops the ball and wipes the party, or feeling the intense pressure that I might drop the ball and wipe the party. Again, these concepts may be alien to you, and that's fine, just understand that they do apply to me. I enjoy when games give me the *opportunity* to succeed well, but do not *punish* me for failure.

 

>You don't want good content, you don't care whether it affects already good content, you still purely just want the rewards and hide it behind a facade of a subpar easy mode which really is just a crappy suggestion to begin with.

 

You may believe this, or it may be a rhetorical point, I couldn't say for sure because I don't know your mind any more than you know mine, but I will say unequivocally that this is false.

 

>And your comment that it's intellectually dishonest (purely a statement to throw some negative words together without any coherence but let's go with it) to pretend that paths don't even exist. Your whole statement is based pretending paths don't exist. "Oh but raids don't even exist to players who don't like it, oh but raid rewards don't exists to players who don't like it Oh you can't just go into the game right now and start raiding." If you want to call that intellectual dishonest, be my guest.

 

I'm saying that when an existing path falls significantly outside of what a given player is interested in doing, then that path may as well not exist *for them.* Obviously those paths still exist for others, but if a player determines that a goal is so far off that they may as well not even bother, and therefore they give up pursuit of it, then from their perspective it may as well not even be in the game. Glorious Hero armor fits into this category for most players, it's so unobtainable that it may as well not even exist. Envoy armor is in this range for many others, but it doesn't have to be.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> >Even initial WoW was already considered to go in that direction compared to what was before.

>

> Aw, man, do I remember the _constant_ whining about how super casual WoW was when it came out.

>

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > I’m more curious on what future rewards will bring to future raid wings. More Legendary items, no legendary items. What will the next carrot be for this game mode.

> >

> > I think most of this would most likely go away if people had a choice on equally visual, but different sets of Legendary Armor for each game mode, much like we have for the legendary back packs each being equally visual and have a glider, but are also unique.

>

> So no, you can't have a solution of "well you can never have this skin, but you could instead have this other skin, which *we* consider to be 'equal.'" Chances are it would not be "equal" to most players. Best case, the new one might be considered even better, and that would be nice (although a bit of a bummer for those who have already invested in the old one), but equally likely the older one would be considered the better one to a lot of players. Or perhaps a mix and match of the two positions, a player might want portions of both armors.

 

Just like generation 1 and 2 legendary weapons. I think people would like a choice honestly. Envoy armor is butt ugly IMO, so it can stay in raids. When I mean equally visual, I mean like a transforming armor, but a different variety, a different skin, etc. Just like we have Ad Infinitium, Warbringer and The Ascension.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

>Just like generation 1 and 2 legendary weapons.

 

Exactly. You can't just say "you can never have Dreamer, but you can have Chompa and Kumquat," because pleny of players will want one, and not care at all about the other. An actual solution has to involve each player being able to get the one *they* want, not the one *you've* decided they are allowed to have.

 

 

 

 

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> >Just like generation 1 and 2 legendary weapons.

>

> Exactly. You can't just say "you can never have Dreamer, but you can have Chompa and Kumquat," because pleny of players will want one, and not care at all about the other. An actual solution has to involve each player being able to get the one *they* want, not the one *you've* decided they are allowed to have.

>

Yes this is true, however the methods are slightly different to obtain either. Like owning Heart of Thorns for a start, acquiring a bunch of experience to lvl up the mastery then go through hours of questing you obtain the precursor and gather new gifts that differ from Gen 1.

 

 

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> >Just like generation 1 and 2 legendary weapons.

>

> Exactly. You can't just say "you can never have Dreamer, but you can have Chompa and Kumquat," because pleny of players will want one, and not care at all about the other. An actual solution has to involve each player being able to get the one *they* want, not the one *you've* decided they are allowed to have.

>

Are we talking about Legendary Armor here or everything obtainable in this game?

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > The entry barrier doesn't get any lower than GW2 already has.

>

> You know for a fact that this is not true. The entire topic of discussion for this thread is a version of raiding that would clearly offer a lower barrier of entry. Now, you can dispute that a lower barrier of entry is not *necessary,* for you, but it's impossible to argue that one could not exist.

>

> > 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.

>

> Again, people that don't like raids now, don't like them because of the barrier of entry. Remove that barrier of entry, and at least some of them will enjoy it. You cannot possibly argue otherwise in good faith. There are plenty of people who play the game right now, who do not raid because they do not like the high risk of failure, do not like the difficulty of building an adequate team in a reasonable amount of time, do not like having to rely on potentially unreliable randos. Making the mode easier would eliminate these problems. It would greatly lower the risk of failures and it would make it much easier to throw together a team capable of completing the task in a reasonable amount of time. It would turn the activity from a chore into something that is pure entertainment.

 

So you want to change the core concept behind raids because many people don't like raids in general so we need to change them to appeal a group of players that were never the target audience in the first place. Yes we had this and it is as wrong as it was before. Overcome challenges as a team is the core concept of raids. Bosses with no chance of failure are not challenging. For noone. If you find things were you can't fail challenging you ask yourself if you even know what this word means.

 

 

[yann.1946]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > 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.

>

> Obviously, which is why you give all three modes rewards, and you make all three rewards fair to the time and effort they take to complete. They don't need to be unique rewards though. If you prefer Content B, you shouldn't have to play Content A anyway just because it is the only place to get something you want. It can be the *best* place to get that thing, but shouldn't be the *only* place.

>

 

Thank you for acknowledging that the "well if people wouldn't play it without the rewards maybe it shouldn't be developed" is complete BS. :)

 

> >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.

>

> If people want to play a game less, it's because they are enjoying it less. If they are enjoying it less, then they *should* be playing it less. The solution is to make the game more fun to play, not to ramp up the bribes. And again, the goal here would be to NOT have any modes where it would require less play to achieve a result. Some modes might require less skill and attention, but those would take more time and repetition. Some might require less time and repetition, but would require higher skill and attention. An easy mode raid, for example, would be easier to play, but would take longer to accumulate the same rewards as in the hard mode, because the reward pacing would be adjusted downward. If someone is only interested in getting the rewards ASAP, and genuinely has no personal preference as to hard or easy raids, then hard mode would be the shortest path available to them.

>

 

Maybe but is not how you develop a good game. BTW most of the time people want to play the game less because they are under the impression that this would lead to more fun. People in general are surprisingly bad at guessing what they will enjoy.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> Yes this is true, however the methods are slightly different to obtain either. Like owning Heart of Thorns for a start, acquiring a bunch of experience to lvl up the mastery then go through hours of questing you obtain the precursor and gather new gifts that differ from Gen 1.

 

Well, the HoT requirement is just a hard economics thing, the Gen2 weapons were part of the HoT budget, not the core game budget, so that is a requirement. Beyond that though, they really do need to open up new ways to unlock both types of Legendary weapons.

 

>Are we talking about Legendary Armor here or everything obtainable in this game?

 

It started as a discussion about raids, and then when raiders were like "but you can't have *our* armor which only *we* are entitled to because *we* enjoy raiding!," the discussion expanded to include the topic of Envoy armor, and then when the raiders started into "well whatabout [some other thing that's only found in one mode]?," I pointed out how that was bad too, and two wrongs don't make a right, and it's better to fix both problems than to leave one unresolved. And now we're here.

 

 

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> So you want to change the core concept behind raids because many people don't like raids in general so we need to change them to appeal a group of players that were never the target audience in the first place.

 

Not "change," just alter an *alternative.* The original version would be left completely intact for those that do enjoy it. This can't possibly come as a surprise to you after so many pages of discussion. Like, *literally,* it cannot *possibly* come as a surprise to you.

 

> Overcome challenges as a team is the core concept of raids. Bosses with no chance of failure are not challenging.

 

It's the core concept of the current raids, but it doesn't have to be the core concept of the easier versions. Some players like them the current way, and they can continue to play them the current way. This would be for other players who do not appreciate those elements. Again, think of the Anchovy pizza. This raid would not be for the people who enjoy anchovies, but that's ok, because the anchovy people still have their anchovy pizza to eat.

 

> If you find things were you can't fail challenging you ask yourself if you even know what this word means.

 

I never said that you couldn't fail, just that it would be far less likely. It would have a failure rate more like an average dungeon. The challenge factor would not be in whether or not you could complete it at all, but more in how *quickly* and *efficiently* you could complete it. If you complete VG but you screw up several portions, that's ok, maybe you'll do better next time, better than having to start from scratch on this attempt. But as your skills improve, you can do it more and more often without messing up at all.

 

Again, this does not have to appeal to *you.* That is ok, it never has to.

 

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

You guys are aware that you're arguing with a person who has told me in the past that facts don't matter, right?

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > Yes this is true, however the methods are slightly different to obtain either. Like owning Heart of Thorns for a start, acquiring a bunch of experience to lvl up the mastery then go through hours of questing you obtain the precursor and gather new gifts that differ from Gen 1.

>

> Well, the HoT requirement is just a hard economics thing, the Gen2 weapons were part of the HoT budget, not the core game budget, so that is a requirement. Beyond that though, they really do need to open up new ways to unlock both types of Legendary weapons.

>

> >Are we talking about Legendary Armor here or everything obtainable in this game?

>

> It started as a discussion about raids, and then when raiders were like "but you can't have *our* armor which only *we* are entitled to because *we* enjoy raiding!," the discussion expanded to include the topic of Envoy armor, and then when the raiders started into "well whatabout [some other thing that's only found in one mode]?," I pointed out how that was bad too, and two wrongs don't make a right, and it's better to fix both problems than to leave one unresolved. And now we're here.

>

>

>

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > So you want to change the core concept behind raids because many people don't like raids in general so we need to change them to appeal a group of players that were never the target audience in the first place.

>

> Not "change," just alter an *alternative.* The original version would be left completely intact for those that do enjoy it. This can't possibly come as a surprise to you after so many pages of discussion. Like, *literally,* it cannot *possibly* come as a surprise to you.

>

> > Overcome challenges as a team is the core concept of raids. Bosses with no chance of failure are not challenging.

>

> It's the core concept of the current raids, but it doesn't have to be the core concept of the easier versions. Some players like them the current way, and they can continue to play them the current way. This would be for other players who do not appreciate those elements. Again, think of the Anchovy pizza. This raid would not be for the people who enjoy anchovies, but that's ok, because the anchovy people still have their anchovy pizza to eat.

>

> > If you find things were you can't fail challenging you ask yourself if you even know what this word means.

>

> I never said that you couldn't fail, just that it would be far less likely. It would have a failure rate more like an average dungeon. The challenge factor would not be in whether or not you could complete it at all, but more in how *quickly* and *efficiently* you could complete it. If you complete VG but you screw up several portions, that's ok, maybe you'll do better next time, better than having to start from scratch on this attempt. But as your skills improve, you can do it more and more often without messing up at all.

>

> Again, this does not have to appeal to *you.* That is ok, it never has to.

>

 

No it is not the core concept of the current raids it is the core concept of raids and instanced content in general. That is the reason why they exist. Otherwise you could just place the boss into open world.

People who don't like challenges will not try to complete it as quickly or efficient as they can. Your target audience of an challenge less easy mode just doesn't do such things. Their skill won't improve if they don't have to.

 

The pizza does not only have anchovies but also pineapples and chillies. There are people that also don't like that. Remove it too?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> No it is not the core concept of the current raids it is the core concept of raids and instanced content in general. That is the reason why they exist. Otherwise you could just place the boss into open world.

 

Then why are there dungeons in the game, since dungeons meet my standards for what an easy raid could be, yet somehow fail to meet your own standard of what instanced combat could ever possibly be?

 

>People who don't like challenges will not try to complete it as quickly or efficient as they can.

 

Objectively untrue. Some might not, but some would. To each his own, there's no wrong way to do it so long as each player is enjoying his own experience. I know for a fact that this is how I play. Take the Golem MKII boss. Some players just stand at max range on barrels and fire at him. That's a valid way to play, everyone can do it and the boss will get beaten eventually. Back when I was doing World Bosses regularly, however, I preferred to melee him, avoiding his attacks as best I could. This was risky, I might die a couple of times per fight, but I could run back easily enough, and I had fun challenging my own capabilities. In the cases where I managed it without being downed, I felt good about that, even though it was absolutely unnecessary to overall success. .

 

If, on the other hand, the encounter *required* that I melee him and do so successfully, if me dying was likely to lead to a complete reset of the event, then I would absolutely HATE that encounter. I would find the deaths petty and frustrating. I would not bother it more than a few times and would never do it again. I know for an absolute fact that there are people who view games this way, and there's no way you could possibly convince me that they don't. The only discussion on the table is whether or not you believe that these players should get the game mode that would appeal to them.

 

>The pizza does not only have anchovies but also pineapples and chillies. There are people that also don't like that. Remove it too?

 

**As an option,** yes. Again, NOBODY is arguing that anchovy pizzas should be *unavailable,* nor pineapples or chillies, for those that want them. But if people don't want those on *their* pizzas, there's no benefit to anyone to insist "pineapple or no pizza for you!"

 

Stop arguing as if I'm trying to remove the existing raids, we both know that's not my position, so it makes no sense for you to keep pretending that it is. I've done you the respect of replying to the things you say, rather than making up strawmen to attack. You owe it to yourself to do the same.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > No it is not the core concept of the current raids it is the core concept of raids and instanced content in general. That is the reason why they exist. Otherwise you could just place the boss into open world.

>

> Then why are there dungeons in the game, since dungeons meet my standards for what an easy raid could be, yet somehow fail to meet your own standard of what instanced combat could ever possibly be?

>

> >People who don't like challenges will not try to complete it as quickly or efficient as they can.

>

> Objectively untrue. Some might not, but some would. To each his own, there's no wrong way to do it so long as each player is enjoying his own experience. I know for a fact that this is how I play. Take the Golem MKII boss. Some players just stand at max range on barrels and fire at him. That's a valid way to play, everyone can do it and the boss will get beaten eventually. Back when I was doing World Bosses regularly, however, I preferred to melee him, avoiding his attacks as best I could. This was risky, I might die a couple of times per fight, but I could run back easily enough, and I had fun challenging my own capabilities. In the cases where I managed it without being downed, I felt good about that, even though it was absolutely unnecessary to overall success. .

>

> If, on the other hand, the encounter *required* that I melee him and do so successfully, if me dying was likely to lead to a complete reset of the event, then I would absolutely HATE that encounter. I would find the deaths petty and frustrating. I would not bother it more than a few times and would never do it again. I know for an absolute fact that there are people who view games this way, and there's no way you could possibly convince me that they don't. The only discussion on the table is whether or not you believe that these players should get the game mode that would appeal to them.

>

> >The pizza does not only have anchovies but also pineapples and chillies. There are people that also don't like that. Remove it too?

>

> **As an option,** yes. Again, NOBODY is arguing that anchovy pizzas should be *unavailable,* nor pineapples or chillies, for those that want them. But if people don't want those on *their* pizzas, there's no benefit to anyone to insist "pineapple or no pizza for you!"

>

> Stop arguing as if I'm trying to remove the existing raids, we both know that's not my position, so it makes no sense for you to keep pretending that it is. I've done you the respect of replying to the things you say, rather than making up strawmen to attack. You owe it to yourself to do the same.

 

Dungeon were supposed to replace raids in GW2. ArenaNet advertised them _as a challenge for organised groups_ and they failed. One of the reasons they got abaddoned. You know this, we had it in other threads already.

 

I never said in this post you want to remove them. Stop finding things in my posts that aren't there. Challenge is not the only factor why people don't play raids. Some like the challenge but don't like the group size. Others don't like the fact it is instanced (there were multiple requests for challenging open world content in the last weeks). So anchovies=challenge, pine apple=group size, chillies=instanced. If you remove the challenge you only reach a small part of those who don't play them right now for whatever reason.

 

There are also people that view games as an interactive film and there are many people that find the combat system in GW2 too stressful. But the combat system never got changed because they are not the target. Same for raids and people that don't like frustration.

 

You only answer to things that may support your argument. You still haven't commented on [Cmaj] clearing the raids despite being a music guild. They even make videos about it and there are everything but hardcore players.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> You guys are aware that you're arguing with a person who has told me in the past that facts don't matter, right?

 

Yes, he has proven this multiple times over multiple threads.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> Thank you for acknowledging that the "well if people wouldn't play it without the rewards maybe it shouldn't be developed" is complete BS. :)

Nah, there's a difference between people not playing the content unless they are bribed and people not playing the content even though they might even like it because of a massive reward disparity.

 

Yes, if All the rewards will be in content A, and nothing in content B and C then noone will play content B and C. This tells us nothing about how good those might be. If, however, content A, B and C give out relatively comparable (and nonexclusive) rewards, and people are playing only A and C while B is visibly underpopulated, then B is not so good. And the solution is _not_ to increase rewards in B until it gets popular again. It's to either to change it until more people will consider it fun, or to drop it altogether if numbers are bad enough.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> 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.

 

You don't know that now either. It's as with the AP and skill in dungeons - there are enough exceptions that in the end you know nothing anyway.

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"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).

Then why whenever this is brought up there are always people that are against this idea, saying either that "one PvE path is enough and there's no need for more", or that "legendary armor should stay legendary, and that means acquisition only through the Most Challenging game content", or that "it's not plactical, we should not be wasting dev time on this"? And by "people" i mean specifically raiders.

 

Truth is, a lot of raiders want raids to be the only place you can get legendary armor in PvE. Either because of prestige, or because they're afraid that a lot of people are raiding only due to that armor, and they might leave otherwise.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > 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.

>

> You don't know that now either. It's as with the AP and skill in dungeons - there are enough exceptions that in the end you know nothing anyway.

 

Nah, the exceptions are a very small minority.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>Dungeon were supposed to replace raids in GW2. ArenaNet advertised them as a challenge for organised groups and they failed. One of the reasons they got abaddoned. You know this, we had it in other threads already.

 

Dungeons lasted several years. They got abandoned because people got tired of them, as they get tired of ANY content, as they will get tired of raids, eventually. There's no surprise there.

 

> Challenge is not the only factor why people don't play raids. Some like the challenge but don't like the group size. Others don't like the fact it is instanced (there were multiple requests for challenging open world content in the last weeks). So anchovies=challenge, pine apple=group size, chillies=instanced. If you remove the challenge you only reach a small part of those who don't play them right now for whatever reason.

 

It's not the only factor, but it's a major one, and contributes to all the rest.

 

"Don't like the group size?" Why? Ten people, in general, is just way too many people? Of course not. Those same people likely join world boss encounters with dozens of people. The reason group size is an issue is because of the challenge, because you can't just take the first ten people you meet, you need to be selective in acquiring ten people who meet certain class and gearing requirements, all or at least most of whom have previous experience, and if you choose poorly, then you're in for an hour or more of fruitless attempts. "Ten people" is an issue because you can spend a half hour or more just acquiring ten people and getting them lined up for battle, and event hen might still fail. If the challenge is less, then "ten people" just means you sign up for lfg and a few minutes later you have ten people and can dive in with a reasonable chance of success.

 

>Others don't like the fact it is instanced (there were multiple requests for challenging open world content in the last weeks).

 

That's certainly true, and Instanced content isn't my *favorite* content, but I still enjoy it from time to time, when it's fun and rewarding. I'm not claiming that this would capture 100% of the players, nothing does, but I think it's fair to argue that it would capture a significant number of players who are stuck between "don't want to raid under the current conditions" and "don't want to raid ever in any way," just as lower tier Fractals capture players that might like the basic idea, but don't want to invest in AR or learn the skills needed for the top tiers.

 

>You only answer to things that may support your argument. You still haven't commented on [Cmaj] clearing the raids despite being a music guild. They even make videos about it and there are everything but hardcore players.

 

It's not really relevant to what I'm talking about. They can clear it, great, but they aren't providing the experience I'd like to see in the game, the casual anytime pug Raid.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> >Dungeon were supposed to replace raids in GW2. ArenaNet advertised them as a challenge for organised groups and they failed. One of the reasons they got abaddoned. You know this, we had it in other threads already.

>

> Dungeons lasted several years. They got abandoned because people got tired of them, as they get tired of ANY content, as they will get tired of raids, eventually. There's no surprise there.

>

> > Challenge is not the only factor why people don't play raids. Some like the challenge but don't like the group size. Others don't like the fact it is instanced (there were multiple requests for challenging open world content in the last weeks). So anchovies=challenge, pine apple=group size, chillies=instanced. If you remove the challenge you only reach a small part of those who don't play them right now for whatever reason.

>

> It's not the only factor, but it's a major one, and contributes to all the rest.

>

> "Don't like the group size?" Why? Ten people, in general, is just way too many people? Of course not. Those same people likely join world boss encounters with dozens of people. The reason group size is an issue is because of the challenge, because you can't just take the first ten people you meet, you need to be selective in acquiring ten people who meet certain class and gearing requirements, all or at least most of whom have previous experience, and if you choose poorly, then you're in for an hour or more of fruitless attempts. "Ten people" is an issue because you can spend a half hour or more just acquiring ten people and getting them lined up for battle, and event hen might still fail. If the challenge is less, then "ten people" just means you sign up for lfg and a few minutes later you have ten people and can dive in with a reasonable chance of success.

>

> >Others don't like the fact it is instanced (there were multiple requests for challenging open world content in the last weeks).

>

> That's certainly true, and Instanced content isn't my *favorite* content, but I still enjoy it from time to time, when it's fun and rewarding. I'm not claiming that this would capture 100% of the players, nothing does, but I think it's fair to argue that it would capture a significant number of players who are stuck between "don't want to raid under the current conditions" and "don't want to raid ever in any way," just as lower tier Fractals capture players that might like the basic idea, but don't want to invest in AR or learn the skills needed for the top tiers.

>

> >You only answer to things that may support your argument. You still haven't commented on [Cmaj] clearing the raids despite being a music guild. They even make videos about it and there are everything but hardcore players.

>

> It's not really relevant to what I'm talking about. They can clear it, great, but they aren't providing the experience I'd like to see in the game, the casual anytime pug Raid.

 

No they didn't. The dungeon team got dissolved after aetherpath which got released in october 2013, a bit more than a year after release. Dungeons were unsupported content after that.

 

There are many people that want more 5 man challenging content and don't touch raids as they find 5 man content more social. Those people exist I didn't made it up. I never said 10 man is too big of a group for me.

The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

No, easy mode raids will not happen the way you describe it because you still need healer/tank and things like handkiter at Deimos. So either remove that and you can really take 10 people without any requirements (requires huge changes) or run into the same problems you have now just on a different scale.

 

[Cmaj] is relevant to the discussion as many people get scared away because they get constantly told by people like you that raids are hard and don't suit casuals which is infact a lie. Your easy mode/hard mode seperation, which should be easy/normal mode, is part of that and you are aware of it.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> No they didn't. The dungeon team got dissolved after aetherpath which got released in october 2013, a bit more than a year after release. Dungeons were unsupported content after that.

 

That was ANet's choice, but they were still played, likely more than raids are today. The devs may not have supported it, but the players did.

 

>There are many people that want more 5 man challenging content and don't touch raids as they find 5 man content more social. Those people exist I didn't made it up. I never said 10 man is too big of a group for me.

 

They may be out there, but that doesn't mean that they would never touch these easier raids if they were offered, or that there wouldn't still be large number of players outside their sphere.

 

>The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

 

Which is why they should not reward less than meta events. More hassle = more reward. The quantity and quality of rewards need to be balanced against the inconvenience of them, and *yes,* as I've had to restate numerous times in this thread, that applies to the existing raids as well.

 

>No, easy mode raids will not happen the way you describe it because you still need healer/tank and things like handkiter at Deimos.

 

Again, if enemies are pumping out less damage, dedicated healers are less important. The tanker is whoever shows up with the highest toughness. If at all possible, I think it would be great if the easy mode included a "shrine" that would give one player at a time a +X amount of toughness, enough that he could steal the tank role from most other builds even if he were only balanced. The last person to activate it keeps the boon. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to implement.

 

>[Cmaj] is relevant to the discussion as many people get scared away because they get constantly told by people like you that raids are hard and don't suit casuals which is infact a lie. Your easy mode/hard mode seperation, which should be easy/normal mode, is part of that and you are aware of it.

 

Again though, the example you pointed out was clearly an organized guild who knew what they were trying to do, and had voice chat. They may be relatively casual by raider standards, but they are WAY more organized than any dungeon pug I've been a part of, and who knows how many attempts they made at each boss. Their success or failure at raiding has nothing to do with the sort of experience I'm advocating here.

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > No they didn't. The dungeon team got dissolved after aetherpath which got released in october 2013, a bit more than a year after release. Dungeons were unsupported content after that.

>

> That was ANet's choice, but they were still played, likely more than raids are today. The devs may not have supported it, but the players did.

>

> >There are many people that want more 5 man challenging content and don't touch raids as they find 5 man content more social. Those people exist I didn't made it up. I never said 10 man is too big of a group for me.

>

> They may be out there, but that doesn't mean that they would never touch these easier raids if they were offered, or that there wouldn't still be large number of players outside their sphere.

>

> >The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

>

> Which is why they should not reward less than meta events. More hassle = more reward. The quantity and quality of rewards need to be balanced against the inconvenience of them, and *yes,* as I've had to restate numerous times in this thread, that applies to the existing raids as well.

>

> >No, easy mode raids will not happen the way you describe it because you still need healer/tank and things like handkiter at Deimos.

>

> Again, if enemies are pumping out less damage, dedicated healers are less important. The tanker is whoever shows up with the highest toughness. If at all possible, I think it would be great if the easy mode included a "shrine" that would give one player at a time a +X amount of toughness, enough that he could steal the tank role from most other builds even if he were only balanced. The last person to activate it keeps the boon. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to implement.

>

> >[Cmaj] is relevant to the discussion as many people get scared away because they get constantly told by people like you that raids are hard and don't suit casuals which is infact a lie. Your easy mode/hard mode seperation, which should be easy/normal mode, is part of that and you are aware of it.

>

> Again though, the example you pointed out was clearly an organized guild who knew what they were trying to do, and had voice chat. They may be relatively casual by raider standards, but they are WAY more organized than any dungeon pug I've been a part of, and who knows how many attempts they made at each boss. Their success or failure at raiding has nothing to do with the sort of experience I'm advocating here.

 

Yes, people run them because they had the highest rewards in the game. Not because they actually liked it. The dungeon participation plummed after silverwastes got released.

Yes people that want _challenging_ 5 man content will never touch an easier version of 10 man content because they want something _challenging_.

 

You goal is to reduce the time investment to meta events, why should it reward more? You permanently bring in that people should play for fun, not the rewards. So why do we need high rewards in an easy mode if people would actually like to play them? Or does it actually mean that most people won't enjoy easy mode raids and just run them for rewards?

 

Raids were specifically advertised that they can't just be completed by any random party. So you want to change the core concept while you stated above you do not want to do that.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

>Yes, people run them because they had the highest rewards in the game. Not because they actually liked it. The dungeon participation plummed after silverwastes got released.

 

Again, what would you expect, that content would remain viable for several years at a time?

 

>Yes people that want challenging 5 man content will never touch an easier version of 10 man content because they want something challenging.

 

Sure, and they have Fractals, this has nothing to do with them. Why do you bring them up?

 

>You goal is to reduce the time investment to meta events, why should it reward more?

 

Not crazy amounts more, but it would still be at least slightly more hassle in that you'd need to assemble a party for it, and while failure would be far less likely than current raids, it would not be as reliable as some metas.

 

If we have a scale of time investment and hassle from 1-10, with 9-10 being the various raids, 6-7 being the average dungeon or long-duration meta event, 2-4 being the average vanilla World Boss, 1-2 being like, just, do whatever man, I would peg these as being in the 5-7 range, and therefore be worthy of 5-7 rewards, more than easier metas and world bosses, less than raids by a noticeable amount, and amount even with dungeons and map metas. Again though, in terms of reward the draw would be that it would be a shorter path to Envoy armor than those map metas.

 

>You permanently bring in that people should play for fun, not the rewards. So why do we need high rewards in an easy mode if people would actually like to play them?

 

Read Astralporing's response to that above, he tells it better than I, but basically you need to have a reasonably balance reward structure for all content, the rewards need to be *enough* that you don't feel like your time is being poorly spent on that activity. I've never disputed that. What I dispute is that any specific activity absolutely needs to be the *only* place to get a specific reward, or that any game mode needs way *more* rewards than would be balanced to encourage people who don't like the content to play it anyway. Basically, if you do get into a situation where players are not having fun, but are doing that content anyway rather than something else, then it's a sign of a flawed mechanic, and should not be encouraged. It's hard to get reward balance perfect, but the only way to fail entirely is to stop trying.

 

>Raids were specifically advertised that they can't just be completed by any random party. So you want to change the core concept while you stated above you do not want to do that.

 

I think I've been very clear as to what I want. When I say "the core concept" I mean that I would not be removing any encounter mechanics entirely, I would not be changing the format entirely (like making them solo or five-man), and of course the original raids would remain 100% intact for those that enjoy them. But obviously they would be easier, and that was always part of my pitch, so I don't get the value in feigning surprise at that idea 14 pages in like it had only just occurred to you.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> The group of people that play regulary low level fractals is incredible small. I had problems filling LFGs to complete the level achievements. Manly because the rewards are not good at all and the big group is playing T4. Which will also happen if easy mode raids have less rewards than meta events.

A lot more people would play low-level fractals if they changed fractal rewards so you only get the rewards for the tier you actually _do_ (instead of that tier and all the ones below it, giving literally no reason to do anything less than the highest your AR allows).

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> Yes, people run them because they had the highest rewards in the game. Not because they actually liked it. The dungeon participation plummed after silverwastes got released.

No, dungeon participation plummeted after Anet butchered their rewards (specifically to drive people out of dungeons and into fractals/raids, as they literally stated outright when they did it).