Astralporing.1957 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. In what way it's different than the raid situation now? Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > Raids are the least updated PvE content. Fractals might want to have some words with you. So would Festivals. I'm not even going to mention dungeons here. Or guild content. > @"sigur.9453" said: > Really? You are comparing a once a year event with raids? So, when's the world 3? > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > SAB is a festival, not regular PvE content and they said it is highly unlikely we will see ever see world 3 or 4 years ago already. Exactly. But hey, Raids get even less development time than that! [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > You should do your homework as well. What you are talking about is the raid team - the devs that work on raids and raids only. What you ignore however is that there's also a lot of devs that do stuff for all kinds of content, including raids. For example, can you point me to the person on the raid team roster that does music for raid encounters? > > (hint: no, you can't, because Maclaine Diemer is not part of the Raid team) > > That doesn't matter because it doesn't hinder Diemer to develop new LS/open world stuff because he is a composer and not responsible for giving new content to you. Sure, but that was only one example (he isn't the only person). The point is that there are people working on raids that are _not_ part of the raid team. So, saying all that work is being done by a small team (and bringing up the size of raid team) is untrue. There's more people working on them than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > We > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted April 18, 2018 Author Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > > > You are embarrassing yourself. My opinion was crystal clear throughout this thread. > > > > > > > > >Make raids more easily accessible not the content easier. I made very specific suggestions on how they could do that. You are just too stuck on your own opinion to see beyond your nose. Plus you are derailing thread because of that. > > > > > > > > Sooooo. . . . is that a "no?" Even if easy mode raids could be implemented without an opportunity cost, you still would not want them to happen? > > > > > > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > > That way you can experiance what is it like, you can clear with everything, learn encounters (mechanics are the same) but if you want rewards you need to go to main tier. > > > > > > > > Who benefits from that though? Lets say that there are players who NEVER want to "go to the main tier." Aside from maybe doing them once, what would be the change to their lives in the addition of this feature? Do you recognizer that it is *not* in every player's best interests to "go to the main tier?" > > > > > > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me > > > > What's wrong with easy rewards lol why do you care? > > Coz it devalues hard rewards. Its always been like this wether its a game or rl. U choose what you value more, not bothering with something or the reward that something gives you? Not sure how that adds up since 99% of the games most prestigious items can be bought with a credit card, including buying raid runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me Why? > @"zealex.9410" said: >Toxicity and stupid entry requirements exist in every mmo and gw2 is nit an exception, why should someone be entitled to join all the flg groups? Some clearly look for ppl that isnt them. >I agree a guild browser is what the game needs, nothing else. Deal with the pug life or join a guild, its always been like that. But it's not a problem *unless* the content has a high enough chance of failure that an inadequate group stands a much higher chance of total failure. So long as the content is balanced with the rest of the game, in that a poor group is merely likely to take a little bit longer, but is likely to pull through regardless, then the difficulties of pugging it go away. Players should not *have* to join a raid guild just to play a casual raid. > @"zealex.9410" said: > Coz it devalues hard rewards. Its always been like this wether its a game or rl. U choose what you value more, not bothering with something or the reward that something gives you? Why? Who does that benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"yann.1946" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > > We > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > > > > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. No, that's not what he said: > @"Feanor.2358" said: > Oh, and about the dead end - you're very mistaken here. It doesn't matter how big the percentage is (and it is certainly bigger than 5). It's basically extra players which wouldn't otherwise bother playing the game and spending money on it. The mere fact that raid development continues means in the eyes of the developers raids are a market success. And I believe they have the better means to judge that. The argument, as you can see, was that since raids are still being done, it means that in the eyes of devs raids are a market success (he also made a lot of arguments before that devs have numbers and know better, so if they think something is good, then it _is_ good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > > > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > > > We > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > > > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > > > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > > > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > > > > > > > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. > No, that's not what he said: > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > Oh, and about the dead end - you're very mistaken here. It doesn't matter how big the percentage is (and it is certainly bigger than 5). It's basically extra players which wouldn't otherwise bother playing the game and spending money on it. The mere fact that raid development continues means in the eyes of the developers raids are a market success. And I believe they have the better means to judge that. > > The argument, as you can see, was that since raids are still being done, it means that in the eyes of devs raids are a market success (he also made a lot of arguments before that devs have numbers and know better, so if they think something is good, then it _is_ good). > Since I got dragged here, let me point out a little difference. Continued *existence* doesn't mean much. It means in the eyes of the devs the feature in question isn't harmful to the game. But that's all. Whether or not it is seen as good can be judged based on continued *development*. The difference between the two is that in once case the work is already done, while in the other it's a work you're choosing to do in the future. Because the work is already done, as long as the feature doesn't really harm anyone, there's no reason to take it off. It might have failed and get abandoned, but there will still be some players enjoying it. Just like we have the dungeons abandoned in GW2 in favor of FotM. Clearly the intent is to develop the newer instances, but the old ones are kept in the game. Why wouldn't they? They took a lot of work and nobody likes to see their work go to waste. I don't follow the developments of WoW, so I can't commend on the feature in question. But I wanted to point out the difference, because there is one, and it is quite important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > > > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > > > We > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > > > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > > > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > > > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > > > > > > > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. > No, that's not what he said: > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > Oh, and about the dead end - you're very mistaken here. It doesn't matter how big the percentage is (and it is certainly bigger than 5). It's basically extra players which wouldn't otherwise bother playing the game and spending money on it. The mere fact that raid development continues means in the eyes of the developers raids are a market success. And I believe they have the better means to judge that. > > The argument, as you can see, was that since raids are still being done, it means that in the eyes of devs raids are a market success (he also made a lot of arguments before that devs have numbers and know better, so if they think something is good, then it _is_ good). > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > > > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > > > We > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > > > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > > > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > > > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > > > > > > > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. > No, that's not what he said: > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > Oh, and about the dead end - you're very mistaken here. It doesn't matter how big the percentage is (and it is certainly bigger than 5). It's basically extra players which wouldn't otherwise bother playing the game and spending money on it. The mere fact that raid development continues means in the eyes of the developers raids are a market success. And I believe they have the better means to judge that. > > The argument, as you can see, was that since raids are still being done, it means that in the eyes of devs raids are a market success (he also made a lot of arguments before that devs have numbers and know better, so if they think something is good, then it _is_ good). > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > The conversion rate from LFR to normal is abyssmal. When the developers tried to increase it with higher difficulty and less loot there was a huge kitten. Remember Cataclysm where the normal raid size from 10-15 Bosses after release got reduced to 7/8 Bosses and world content was dead because they needed the ressources for the LFR introduction? The playerbase never recovered from that content drought. The 'cyclical' playercount during expansions has its root in LFR. People subscribe. play one time LFR and unsubscribe again until the next content patch. There is a reason LFR gets released per wing after the normal release (and it's not because they care about the other raiders). Yes LFR was and still is bad for WoW. > > > You can argue with Feanor about that, because, by his argument, the fact that LFR is still in WoW and still not abandoned, is a "very hard, rock-solid" evidence that it only benefits the game. > > > We > > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > > > You can't remove such a feature after the introduction without upsetting a large part of players. Even if they never wanted it to begin with they will riot if you remove it. Because at this point you actually take content away from them they had before even if they never cared about it before the introduction. > > > In what way it's different than the raid situation now? > > > Basically, if Feanor's "argument" is indeed solid, then there's no arguing against LFR being good for WoW. > > > It's possible that he _is_ wrong, of course, and what the calls an argument isn't really as strong as he claims it to be. > > > > > > > His argument was a little different tho het said if participation is low they would have added lfr already. While in you're argumentation they would need to take something away which is worse to do. > No, that's not what he said: > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > Oh, and about the dead end - you're very mistaken here. It doesn't matter how big the percentage is (and it is certainly bigger than 5). It's basically extra players which wouldn't otherwise bother playing the game and spending money on it. The mere fact that raid development continues means in the eyes of the developers raids are a market success. And I believe they have the better means to judge that. > > The argument, as you can see, was that since raids are still being done, it means that in the eyes of devs raids are a market success (he also made a lot of arguments before that devs have numbers and know better, so if they think something is good, then it _is_ good). > I stand corrected then ;) My explanation still holds though ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raizel.8175 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Miellyn.6847" said: > > @"Raizel.8175" said: > >.... > > 2. From all of the current sucessful MMORPGs exactly zero have this 'natural party building'. Seems to work. > 4. WoW, the holy grail for many people when it comes to raid design, has actually the exact same problem, only with achievements not items. It also doesn't 'hard lock' you from accessing the content if you really want to play it otherwise noone would play it. WoW on the other hand locks you from accessing the raids until you reached a certain equipment lvl. You can also create fake chatcodes if you want to go the lying route. But people can tell pretty fast if you don't have experience. Same as in other games. > 5. People go for the easiest way. There are compositions that replace Chronomancers but it takes more effort so PUGs don't do it. DPS is pretty balanced except for Weaver on big hitboxes. > 6. That's the people not the raids. I have LI for 2 more sets of armor and still raid. > 7. Raids _are_ not for everybody. No game has 100% raid participation even with WoWs braindead LFR. Focusing on one demographic if you don't have ressources to cater to multiple is the right choice. > > There is a site for raid logs, gw2raidar. WoW is at a point where your external score is relevant for ingame groups. Yes GW2 is pretty tame compared to other games. > Low DPS at VG for doing greens? Yes he is bad. All decent groups don't do greens anymore. LI/KP don't hard lock you. Just from most better groups. If you think you can play there create fake chatcodes. > > Chrono carry potential got drastically reduced in PUGs with the distortion change. Druid doesn't carry more than any other healing profession. Do you wan't to remove all external healing? > > GW2 is special as you can't faceroll raids with way higher equipment. That's the reason training raids exist. Try to get into heroic raids in WoW at the end of the first week without the achievement and a medicore PvE score from an external website. Good luck. Funny thing you use WoW as example. Just to be clear: The MMORPG-world doesn't only consist of WoW and WoW also suffered from a lot of awful design-options. Using WoW as an example, your first point is just wrong. WoW as one of the most successful MMORPGs actually had that kind of "natural party building" in its vanilla-days. It was one of the main-factors which made the game popular in the first place and why a lot of people wanted Vanilla-servers to begin with. There is a reason why Activision Blizzard had to give in to that request. True, that's not neccessarily the case for most MMORPGs in their current (!) version, but the "casualization" most MMORPGs went through in order to get more people playing it for more revenue also hurt both the Genre and the games a lot; nonetheless it is true for classic MMORPGs. Let's not even talk about the game-as-a-job-mentality a lot of people - especially MMORPG-players - have nowadays... Certain equipment-levels or achievement-requirements aren't a hardlocking mechanism. You'll reach that eventually by playing. LI/KP-requirements though are a hardlocking-mechanism since they require you to have the content you want to enter already completed. Sure, I could use chatcodes. But is it really healthy for a game when people have to rely on lying to get into content? It certainly isn't. The reality confirms this: Nearly every LFG-squad locks people out through LI/KP-requirements, even some "training"-squads do. You also have a hard time finding an actual static via forum if you don't already have a lot of LI/KP, preferably playing multiclass, etc. We certainly are in an unhealthy state where we have the raiding- as some sort of parallel-community that has a strong tendency to isolate itself. I dare say that raids could be for everybody difficulty-wise. They aren't that hard and you don't need to "train" them all that often. If GW2 isn't your first MMORPG, doing a boss 1 to 3 times should be already sufficient. Sure, some people may don't like them, but the percentage of players doing them is laughably low and should be a sign to ANet that they have to improve their game-design. You also have to consider that raids hold one of the games main-reward: legendary armor. Yes, they may be not for everyone, but at the very least the majority of people should be interested in them/doing them. Raidar is a helping-tool for yourself. It isn't public. I can't scroll through people and see their results. Thus people can't easily check me and see that way that I can carry my own weight. Raidar is in no way a replacement of the stupid LI/KP-system people use. That people don't use greens anymore speaks more than words actually. It means that the game-design failed because - obviously - that encounter has become too easy if you can cheese it by outhealing. It also speaks of the class-inbalance of the game. Certainly I don't want to remove external healing, but apparently, it is too strong - at least in combination with defensive boons. Druid-spirits are a real offender to decent game-design in that regard. Yes, the carry-potential of Chrono has been lowered - rightfully so. Mass-Distortion was atrocious game-design. Still, since Chrono and Druid unite so many roles in one specialization each makes them carry raids. It's not just the tank/heal-roles, it's also the overpowered support and of course the overpowered utilities. These specializations have to be reworked for a healthy balance. They dominate PvE which is atrocious game-design. GW2 is far from special. Raids aren't that overly difficult. I don't get why people are always overglorifying them. You may can't faceroll them through overpowered gear, but there certainly is faceroll-potential through certain setups. I also don't really get the argument to begin with. People start hard endgame-content in traditional MMORPGs with sh*tty gear - they get that overpowered gear by clearing hard content. As to your WoW-example: Refer to the first paragraph. The casualization of the genre and the shift in player-mentality "the game as a job" has hurt the genre tremendously. That's an unhealthy development that occured during the years, it wasn't always that way. In fact, pseudo-elitism was very niche - let's say - a decade ago, where it now is pretty mainstream, even though we got sh*t done back in the day too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherofMalakir.4067 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > > You are embarrassing yourself. My opinion was crystal clear throughout this thread. > > > > > > >Make raids more easily accessible not the content easier. I made very specific suggestions on how they could do that. You are just too stuck on your own opinion to see beyond your nose. Plus you are derailing thread because of that. > > > > > > Sooooo. . . . is that a "no?" Even if easy mode raids could be implemented without an opportunity cost, you still would not want them to happen? > > > > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > That way you can experiance what is it like, you can clear with everything, learn encounters (mechanics are the same) but if you want rewards you need to go to main tier. > > > > > > Who benefits from that though? Lets say that there are players who NEVER want to "go to the main tier." Aside from maybe doing them once, what would be the change to their lives in the addition of this feature? Do you recognizer that it is *not* in every player's best interests to "go to the main tier?" > > > > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me > > What's wrong with easy rewards lol why do you care? something that was hard to get is easy(er) now -> it has lower value -> my work has lower value. I get that players enjoy diferent things. I dont want to change things just because i dont enjoy it now. Some players here think that raids are too hard for them so they cannot participate. Well one of my conditions is ADHD. That basicaly means that i cannot stay focused on things that are not fun but if something is fun i can do it all the time. For me this basicaly means that right now i cannot play core open world because after 5 minutes I lose interest. Its not like i am behind a barrier but, i can go to open world a force myself to play but why? I could ask for hard mode core maps but i dont since it would interfere with open world challanges for other players since playerbase would split into to. Also i dont need to play it, i can enjoy other content that is for me. So i would be rly thankful if you respected my style of play as I respect yours. Raids are ment to be a challange for those that want challagne. Also you dont need to participate in training raids, you can go through lfg. Training raids are for TRAINING. I am happy that there is someone who is willing to explain mechanics for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherofMalakir.4067 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me > > Why? > If something is for free it has 0 value. Value increses by 2 things: how much others want that and how hard it is to get. If everything was for free then there would be no point to play this game. No goal to achieve. I remember that when i started playing i valued my first exotic gear with runes and sigils very highly. Then when i get to crafting so i could craft first ascended weapon i quickly noticed how to exploit it and made 400g from 10g in less then a weak adn instead of only weapon I crafted whole ascended set (and then another for my another character). Quickly everything that is purchasable for gold lost value for me. Things like Legendaries that require "missions" to get that are not cheatable by gold/easier path are one of the end game content in this game and you cannot remove end game content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Raizel.8175" said: > The casualization of the genre and the shift in player-mentality "the game as a job" has hurt the genre tremendously. That's debatable. Casualization of the genre opened it to much bigger population than it would be possible originally. And the "game as a job" mentality is something that was in there from the beginning. Unless by that term you means something else than i think you did. Yes, it probably hurt the genre as seen from the point of view of the original niche players. I'm pretty sure the _new_, more casual players (that wouldn't have played in the old model), and the studios releasing the games (that got a much larger numbers of people they could sell the game to) might have a different opinion on that one, though. > @"Raizel.8175" said: > That's an unhealthy development that occured during the years, it wasn't always that way. In fact, pseudo-elitism was very niche - let's say - a decade ago. I wouldn't say so. Originally the games were aimed at hardcores mostly, and their (much smaller) communities consisted, consequently, mostly of hardcores. Any casuals were treated pretty much the same as now (or worse, sometimes far worse), it's just there weren't that many of them around. This doesn't mean there was less toxicity, though. In the past i have seen toxic behaviour on levels that would be grounds for instaban today, but then was considered to be pretty normal. > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > something that was hard to get is easy(er) now -> it has lower value -> my work has lower value. It's not work, It's entertainment. The value should lie in the fact that you had fun getting it, not in you putting a ton of work to get it. > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > I get that players enjoy diferent things. I dont want to change things just because i dont enjoy it now. If we're talking about the activity (this game) you're supposed to be doing purely for enjoyment, it would be strange _not_ to want to change things you don't enjoy. > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > Some players here think that raids are too hard for them so they cannot participate. Well one of my conditions is ADHD. That basicaly means that i cannot stay focused on things that are not fun but if something is fun i can do it all the time. For me this basicaly means that right now i cannot play core open world because after 5 minutes I lose interest. Its not like i am behind a barrier but, i can go to open world a force myself to play but why? I could ask for hard mode core maps but i dont since it would interfere with open world challanges for other players since playerbase would split into to. Also i dont need to play it, i can enjoy other content that is for me. So i would be rly thankful if you respected my style of play as I respect yours. It's good then that the easy mode suggestions don't aim at changing the content you like, but at adding a content for _other_ people to play. > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > Raids are ment to be a challange for those that want challagne. Cool. It doesn't mean _easy mode_ raids should have exactly the same goal though. And if you think it's going to contaminate somehow the term "raid", we can easily use a different name for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > Cool. It doesn't mean _easy mode_ raids should have exactly the same goal though. And if you think it's going to contaminate somehow the term "raid", we can easily use a different name for them. Sure you can have your easy mode dungeon. It can come with dungeon rewards while we're at it. You know that abandoned content, with no Raid Specific rewards. Deal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherofMalakir.4067 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Raizel.8175" said: > > The casualization of the genre and the shift in player-mentality "the game as a job" has hurt the genre tremendously. > That's debatable. Casualization of the genre opened it to much bigger population than it would be possible originally. And the "game as a job" mentality is something that was in there from the beginning. Unless by that term you means something else than i think you did. > Yes, it probably hurt the genre as seen from the point of view of the original niche players. I'm pretty sure the _new_, more casual players (that wouldn't have played in the old model), and the studios releasing the games (that got a much larger numbers of people they could sell the game to) might have a different opinion on that one, though. > > > @"Raizel.8175" said: > > That's an unhealthy development that occured during the years, it wasn't always that way. In fact, pseudo-elitism was very niche - let's say - a decade ago. > I wouldn't say so. Originally the games were aimed at hardcores mostly, and their (much smaller) communities consisted, consequently, mostly of hardcores. Any casuals were treated pretty much the same as now (or worse, sometimes far worse), it's just there weren't that many of them around. This doesn't mean there was less toxicity, though. In the past i have seen toxic behaviour on levels that would be grounds for instaban today, but then was considered to be pretty normal. > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > something that was hard to get is easy(er) now -> it has lower value -> my work has lower value. > It's not work, It's entertainment. The value should lie in the fact that you had fun getting it, not in you putting a ton of work to get it. > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > I get that players enjoy diferent things. I dont want to change things just because i dont enjoy it now. > If we're talking about the activity (this game) you're supposed to be doing purely for enjoyment, it would be strange _not_ to want to change things you don't enjoy. > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > Some players here think that raids are too hard for them so they cannot participate. Well one of my conditions is ADHD. That basicaly means that i cannot stay focused on things that are not fun but if something is fun i can do it all the time. For me this basicaly means that right now i cannot play core open world because after 5 minutes I lose interest. Its not like i am behind a barrier but, i can go to open world a force myself to play but why? I could ask for hard mode core maps but i dont since it would interfere with open world challanges for other players since playerbase would split into to. Also i dont need to play it, i can enjoy other content that is for me. So i would be rly thankful if you respected my style of play as I respect yours. > It's good then that the easy mode suggestions don't aim at changing the content you like, but at adding a content for _other_ people to play. > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > Raids are ment to be a challange for those that want challagne. > Cool. It doesn't mean _easy mode_ raids should have exactly the same goal though. And if you think it's going to contaminate somehow the term "raid", we can easily use a different name for them. > IT DOES CHANGE IT. It fracture the players that play raids. Some of them (more casual raiders) might go from normal to easy mode so we lose players on normal mode. Also every new raider would be at easy lvl so some of us would have hard time looking for group that wants to do normal raids but hasnt cleared much. Btw why do you want to do raids if you want them easy? I am sorry but i dont get it. Its like if someone wants to do PvP but dont want to fight other players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherofMalakir.4067 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Also this: Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns™, introduces the ultimate challenge: our first raid, which is made up of three distinct raid wings. Raids are 10-player, instanced, elite dungeon content that's a challenge unlike anything we've previously released in Guild Wars 2. These raids are meant to put you and your teammates to the test and challenge you to grow your skills as Guild Wars 2 players. Raids are our answer to what skilled PvE players have to look forward to at endgame—the ultimate test to overcome and defeat Notice parts: ultimate challange, grow your skill, challange you, skilled pve players and ultimate test. Making it easy goes against the idea of raids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > something that was hard to get is easy(er) now -> it has lower value -> my work has lower value. No. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but it's not true, and you're only setting yourself up for hardships. The work you put in on something is the work you put in on it, even if they later offer something for a lower price. If the game launches at $60, and then they make it free to play three years later, does that devalue the work you put in to earn that $60? Nothing can ever devalue the work you put in, even if other players arrive at the same destination by an easier path. You having traveled a more difficult path to get there does not mean that you are entitled to begrudge other players for taking the easier path. >If something is for free it has 0 value. Value increses by 2 things: how much others want that and how hard it is to get. The value in the item is in the item itself. Do you want one of your characters to wear that skin? Yes? Then it has value, no matter where it comes from. Do you want one of your characters to wear that skin? No? Then it has no value, no matter how hard it is to get or how few people have it. >IT DOES CHANGE IT. It fracture the players that play raids. Some of them (more casual raiders) might go from normal to easy mode so we lose players on normal mode. If so, that's a good thing. If they would prefer to be playing easy mode, then they *should* be playing easy mode, and *you* should be *happy* about that, because that will make them happier, and you should be happy when other players are happy. You are not *entitled* to having players fill out *your* raid teams if they would rather be doing something else. If you really need their help that much, maybe offer to pay them to join you, make it worth their while. >Btw why do you want to do raids if you want them easy? I am sorry but i dont get it. Its like if someone wants to do PvP but dont want to fight other players. I think we've explained our positions, but at the end of the day you don't have to understand why we want it, just as I can't truly understand why anyone would enjoy "training raids," all you need to understand is that players *do* want it, and help them to achieve that. >Notice parts: ultimate challange, grow your skill, challange you, skilled pve players and ultimate test. >Making it easy goes against the idea of raids Yes, that is exactly what we are doing, going against that, because we disagree that these are good things. > @"TexZero.7910" said: > Sure you can have your easy mode dungeon. It can come with dungeon rewards while we're at it. You know that abandoned content, with no Raid Specific rewards. > > Deal ? That's fine, assuming the quantities involved are enough to warrant participation, but it only solves half the problem. You'd then need to figure out an entirely *separate* solution for distributing raid rewards without having to do the current difficulty raids. Seems like more work, not less, and I know how much you guys are worried about ANet's workload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > Sure you can have your easy mode dungeon. It can come with dungeon rewards while we're at it. You know that abandoned content, with no Raid Specific rewards. > > > > Deal ? > > That's fine, assuming the quantities involved are enough to warrant participation, but it only solves half the problem. You'd then need to figure out an entirely *separate* solution for distributing raid rewards without having to do the current difficulty raids. > > Seems like more work, not less, and I know how much you guys are worried about ANet's workload. I mean, if you want raid rewards you raid. If you want easy mode dungeon rewards you do the proposed easy mode dungeon which has absolutely 0 raid rewards. Sounds rather simple to me. But we all know your position you want to log in, and have legendary armor appear on all of your characters with a +5000gem deposit for being a swell person. It's not going to happen so lets leave the idea to the realm of fantasy. Reality is if you want the rewards of said content you do said content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > > > > You are embarrassing yourself. My opinion was crystal clear throughout this thread. > > > > > > > > > > >Make raids more easily accessible not the content easier. I made very specific suggestions on how they could do that. You are just too stuck on your own opinion to see beyond your nose. Plus you are derailing thread because of that. > > > > > > > > > > Sooooo. . . . is that a "no?" Even if easy mode raids could be implemented without an opportunity cost, you still would not want them to happen? > > > > > > > > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > > > That way you can experiance what is it like, you can clear with everything, learn encounters (mechanics are the same) but if you want rewards you need to go to main tier. > > > > > > > > > > Who benefits from that though? Lets say that there are players who NEVER want to "go to the main tier." Aside from maybe doing them once, what would be the change to their lives in the addition of this feature? Do you recognizer that it is *not* in every player's best interests to "go to the main tier?" > > > > > > > > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me > > > > > > What's wrong with easy rewards lol why do you care? > > > > Coz it devalues hard rewards. Its always been like this wether its a game or rl. U choose what you value more, not bothering with something or the reward that something gives you? > > Not sure how that adds up since 99% of the games most prestigious items can be bought with a credit card, including buying raid runs. They go for a very high price fitting of their value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted April 19, 2018 Author Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > > > > > You are embarrassing yourself. My opinion was crystal clear throughout this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Make raids more easily accessible not the content easier. I made very specific suggestions on how they could do that. You are just too stuck on your own opinion to see beyond your nose. Plus you are derailing thread because of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sooooo. . . . is that a "no?" Even if easy mode raids could be implemented without an opportunity cost, you still would not want them to happen? > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said: > > > > > > > That way you can experiance what is it like, you can clear with everything, learn encounters (mechanics are the same) but if you want rewards you need to go to main tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who benefits from that though? Lets say that there are players who NEVER want to "go to the main tier." Aside from maybe doing them once, what would be the change to their lives in the addition of this feature? Do you recognizer that it is *not* in every player's best interests to "go to the main tier?" > > > > > > > > > > If they never want to go to main tier and dont want to play the content for a story they just want easy rewards. I am against that so no from me > > > > > > > > What's wrong with easy rewards lol why do you care? > > > > > > Coz it devalues hard rewards. Its always been like this wether its a game or rl. U choose what you value more, not bothering with something or the reward that something gives you? > > > > Not sure how that adds up since 99% of the games most prestigious items can be bought with a credit card, including buying raid runs. > > They go for a very high price fitting of their value. yah tell that to a rich person, in game or IRL.You would think you wouldn't be able to buy any of this stuff with a credit card or TP flipping, but you can which devalues it even more which makes my point valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted April 19, 2018 Author Share Posted April 19, 2018 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted April 19, 2018 Author Share Posted April 19, 2018 double post again =( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > I mean, if you want raid rewards you raid. Currently, yeah, but that's what needs to be fixed, since the current raids aren't for everyone, while the rewards locked behind them are (or at least they are two separate Venn circles with only partial overlap). >If you want easy mode dungeon rewards you do the proposed easy mode dungeon which has absolutely 0 raid rewards. >Sounds rather simple to me. Yes, that's part's fine, we're past that part, but again, you need to sort out how non-raiders would be able to access the raid rewards under such a proposal. You leave that completely unaddressed. >But we all know your position you want to log in, and have legendary armor appear on all of your characters with a +5000gem deposit for being a swell person. No, that's never been my position. I've always focused on working as long, or longer, to *earn* the legendary armor as ANY raider ever has, I just want it to be in a different portion of the game, one with a lower failure rate than raids currently offer. I just do not enjoy that sort of gameplay and seek an alternative. Please don't try to distract from the issue with hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > I mean, if you want raid rewards you raid. > > Currently, yeah, but that's what needs to be fixed, since the current raids aren't for everyone, while the rewards locked behind them are (or at least they are two separate Venn circles with only partial overlap). > > >If you want easy mode dungeon rewards you do the proposed easy mode dungeon which has absolutely 0 raid rewards. > >Sounds rather simple to me. > > Yes, that's part's fine, we're past that part, but again, you need to sort out how non-raiders would be able to access the raid rewards under such a proposal. You leave that completely unaddressed. > > >But we all know your position you want to log in, and have legendary armor appear on all of your characters with a +5000gem deposit for being a swell person. > > No, that's never been my position. I've always focused on working as long, or longer, to *earn* the legendary armor as ANY raider ever has, I just want it to be in a different portion of the game, one with a lower failure rate than raids currently offer. I just do not enjoy that sort of gameplay and seek an alternative. Please don't try to distract from the issue with hyperbole. I dont have to sort out anything. What your asking for is so farfetched an unrealistic that it's quite literally only you asking for handouts for raids. No sane person is even remotely going to consider it or address such a fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson.5160 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > Sure you can have your easy mode dungeon. It can come with dungeon rewards while we're at it. You know that abandoned content, with no Raid Specific rewards. > > > > > > Deal ? > > > > That's fine, assuming the quantities involved are enough to warrant participation, but it only solves half the problem. You'd then need to figure out an entirely *separate* solution for distributing raid rewards without having to do the current difficulty raids. > > > > Seems like more work, not less, and I know how much you guys are worried about ANet's workload. > > I mean, if you want raid rewards you raid. > > If you want easy mode dungeon rewards you do the proposed easy mode dungeon which has absolutely 0 raid rewards. > Sounds rather simple to me. > > But we all know your position you want to log in, and have legendary armor appear on all of your characters with a +5000gem deposit for being a swell person. > It's not going to happen so lets leave the idea to the realm of fantasy. Reality is if you want the rewards of said content you do said content. > Kinda going a bit extreme here...Tex. Clearly you weren’t reading large chronicle that is this thread. Make a coffee, toast a pop tart, find a comfy seat and have a boo at what most people on our side of the fence, would like to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: >What your asking for is so farfetched an unrealistic that it's quite literally only you asking for handouts for raids. Again, that's hyperbole. I'm not asking to be *given* anything. I'm expecting to *earn* anything that I get, I just want to earn it from a gameplay mode that I enjoy more than the current raids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now