Please Overhaul Raids.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Specifics are in that other thread. And here _you_ were the one assuming the same effect regardless of specifics.

> >

>

> How so? When I see bad specifics I comment on them that's the point of having a discussion. It's not like when someone posts specifics everyone has to agree with them.

> At least the comments on specifics can be better basis for a discussion than abstractions.

 

Okay.

 

So, at this point i am lost about whether you actually agree with me that the amount of people interested in easy mode would depend on specific implementation (how difficult it would be, for example) and that it at least _has_ potential to bring in significantly more players than are already raiding, or are you standing by your initial blanket statement that the amount of people interested in easy mode would be small, lesser than actual raiders now, _regardless_ of implementation.

 

Could you please clarify?

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Playing content you don't enjoy because it's too hard is worse than playing content that you don't enjoy because it's too easy, because at least with the latter you have less stress and can relax a bit. Ideally you can find content you can actually *enjoy,* but having only one option to pursue a given reward does not allow for that sort of freedom.

> >

>

> This is false. If the content is too hard, then don't play it. Problems solved.

 

That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

 

>If you give access to the same reward from an easier mode, you entice players to play it for the rewards and forget what they enjoy. It's called the path of least resistance, in the end that's what kills games, so it's far worse than not having an alternative mode for the rewards you want. Far far worse.

 

This is why the quantity of rewards should be balanced to keep the harder mode attractive to those with any interest in it. In any case, "the path of least resistance" is still better than no alternate paths at all.

 

 

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > Yes it matters a lot. It was not in comparison for normal mode but the rest of the game. The main reason dungeons died are the fact that many activities reward more in less or the same time. People got tired of them long before.

> > People don't get picky about what to play for rewards. They just choose the activity with the highest rewards.

> >

> > Well, those people would likely be disappointed, at least at first. I don't expect it to provide more generic rewards than some of the most efficient farms. It would, however, be the only place to progress towards Legendary armor, so that would be a draw.

> >

> It will progress towards legendary armor as unranked PvP progresses towards the PvP armor.

 

Again, there is no meaningful distinction between ranked and unranked PvP, they are both the same game experience.

 

> > >People that never played dungeons will never play an easy mode raid.

> >

> > Proof?

> >

> People that weren't interested in an easier version of a content type won't play a harder version. It just doesn't make sense at all.

 

They are different content. "Easy mode raids" are not "harder dungeons," they are "easier raids." Players who are interested in doing the raids may never have engaged with the dungeons. I would bet that there actually are people with raid clears under their belt who have never completed most, if any of the dungeons.

 

> Where is your proof they would? All you brought for any for your arguments where feelings and dreams how things should behave.

 

Why is there a burden of proof on me that does not seem to be on you? Where is your proof that there is not a significant audience for easy mode raids?

 

> No they won't. People that like laid back instant action play open world. Not a mode where they have to form a team before entering.

 

People like a lot of things. I fully expect that those players would *also* be spending time in open world, but *in addition to that* they would be finding time for raiding too.

 

 

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > > >People that never played dungeons will never play an easy mode raid.

> > >

> > > Proof?

> > >

> > People that weren't interested in an easier version of a content type won't play a harder version. It just doesn't make sense at all.

>

> They are different content. "Easy mode raids" are not "harder dungeons," they are "easier raids." Players who are interested in doing the raids may never have engaged with the dungeons. I would bet that there actually are people with raid clears under their belt who have never completed most, if any of the dungeons.

>

You want easy modes on Arah level, people that didn't like the dungeon difficulty won't play it. Or are we at open world already? See it *is* hard to find a difficulty for the target audience. But no time involved.

> > Where is your proof they would? All you brought for any for your arguments where feelings and dreams how things should behave.

>

> Why is there a burden of proof on me that does not seem to be on you? Where is your proof that there is not a significant audience for easy mode raids?

>

The fact that ArenaNet is considering repeatable CMs and not an easy mode is a really strong indicator that creating an easy mode has more disadvantages than advantages for the game

So now about you? Proof that it doesn't take long? Proof that there is a significant portion of the playerbase that actually wants to play easy mode raids regular? Proof that people that didn't play instanced content at all will all of the sudden like an easy mode raid?

> > No they won't. People that like laid back instant action play open world. Not a mode where they have to form a team before entering.

>

> People like a lot of things. I fully expect that those players would *also* be spending time in open world, but *in addition to that* they would be finding time for raiding too.

>

No they won't. Automated systems are the reason why easy modes work in other games. We don't have it here and PvP matchmaking is something completely different.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> You want easy modes on Arah level, people that didn't like the dungeon difficulty won't play it.

 

Again, different content attracts different audiences. Just because someone never did Arah does not mean that they would never do this. You guys are just getting silly at this point. I would target it at more towards the mid-tier dungeons though, I haven't done Arah in a long time, and it wasn't that hard when I did, but if people still find it difficult then probably less than that.

 

>The fact that ArenaNet is considering repeatable CMs and not an easy mode is a really strong indicator that creating an easy mode has more disadvantages than advantages for the game

 

"ANet deciding something" is not evidence that it's the right course of action. ANet decides a lot of things that don't work out, both in what they do, and what they choose not to do. I mean, Stronghold.

 

>So now about you? Proof that it doesn't take long? Proof that there is a significant portion of the playerbase that actually wants to play easy mode raids regular? Proof that people that didn't play instanced content at all will all of the sudden like an easy mode raid?

 

I have presented at least as much proof on each of those points as you've produced contradicting them.

 

>No they won't. Automated systems are the reason why easy modes work in other games. We don't have it here and PvP matchmaking is something completely different.

 

They don't need to be automated, they just need to be simple. The LFG system works fine for getting ten people together. It only falls down for raids when groups are forced to get picky about who they do and do not allow in, because they could fail if they aren't selective. Remove or greatly reduce the odds of that happening, and you could reliably fill 100% pug raid groups in minutes.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

>

 

It is solving the problem perfectely.

 

> This is why the quantity of rewards should be balanced to keep the harder mode attractive to those with any interest in it. In any case, "the path of least resistance" is still better than no alternate paths at all.

>

 

No it's not. Path of least resistance is far worse than no alternate paths because such balance of rewards is impossible.

 

 

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

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

> > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Raids need to accommodate everyone

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is interesting, do dungeons and fractals also need to accommodate everyone? Because at this moment they do not in fact do that.

> > > > > > > > > So before Raids accommodate everyone, why don't you propose an overhaul of Dungeons and Fractals first, so that entry level instanced content can accommodate everyone. It wouldn't make much sense for the 10-player challenging instanced content to be made to accommodate everyone, while the 5-man entry level instanced content does not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > They have fractal scales and dungeons are so easy that they are at the most minimum threshold they can be, so nobody complains, elite specs make them even easier, and most importantly you don't need certain setups, builds or skill rotations for them and the bosses have no enrage timers.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You'd be surprised, but where difficulties exist, we *do* care about group composition and builds. Dungeons are abandoned and a cakewalk, that's why nobody cares. But people actively playing fractals? They play t4 and cms, they ask for specific builds and they ask for killproof. With exactly the same intent - to get a smooth clear instead of relentless clown fiesta.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your taking about scale 100 fractals, nobody does this on scale 1, and nobody does this on vanilla dungeons. So they have a baseline for vanilla dungeons that is so easy you don't need a lower difficulty option, there are no enrage timers so you could beat it in full nomads. All optimal builds do is make speed runs quicker but they are not necessary. This is not possible I in raids, since if enough die or you don't dps hard enough (specific spec/build + skill level) the boss timer will run out and you will wipe. None of this is true in any dungeons or fractals.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, it is true in t4 and cms. Just because t1 is a faceroll and nobody cares about it doesn't extend the same attitude in *all* fractals. The problem would remain, just as it is present in t4/cm. People overrate their skill and will try to enter the groups where skill, build and composition matter. And they'll get kicked, because they're inexperienced and they'll fail. Just like it happens in fractals.

> > > >

> > > > Yes but unlike raids, fractals have different difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard).

> > >

> > > So? What you claimed is still wrong.

> >

> > I never said I was trying to prevent all kicking. Just reduce it and give people more options which reduces it further.

>

> It. Will. Not. Happen. Clearly. The problem is people misjudge their skill and try to play on the difficulty they're not ready to. Just like in fractals.

 

Well clearly pve world bosses is a baseline difficulty of nobody getting kicked, since they're so easy, there is no reason to scrutinized anyone, so they could make raids that easy and then nobody would be removed from any group. That would actually solve all of the problems related to grouping. What does a person misjudging their personal skill for content have to do with anything?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> Well clearly pve world bosses is a baseline difficulty of nobody getting kicked, so they could make raids that easy and then nobody would be removed from any group. That would actually solve all the problems. And what does a person misjudging their skill for content have to do with anything?

 

Difficulty is not why there is no removal from groups in pve world bosses.

You see no kicks because they are pointless, if let's say Tequatl was inside an instance (without changes in difficulty) you'd see loads of kicks from the squad there. For example every single dead person that refuses to use a waypoint.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

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

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

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

> > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Raids need to accommodate everyone

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is interesting, do dungeons and fractals also need to accommodate everyone? Because at this moment they do not in fact do that.

> > > > > > > > > > So before Raids accommodate everyone, why don't you propose an overhaul of Dungeons and Fractals first, so that entry level instanced content can accommodate everyone. It wouldn't make much sense for the 10-player challenging instanced content to be made to accommodate everyone, while the 5-man entry level instanced content does not.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > They have fractal scales and dungeons are so easy that they are at the most minimum threshold they can be, so nobody complains, elite specs make them even easier, and most importantly you don't need certain setups, builds or skill rotations for them and the bosses have no enrage timers.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You'd be surprised, but where difficulties exist, we *do* care about group composition and builds. Dungeons are abandoned and a cakewalk, that's why nobody cares. But people actively playing fractals? They play t4 and cms, they ask for specific builds and they ask for killproof. With exactly the same intent - to get a smooth clear instead of relentless clown fiesta.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your taking about scale 100 fractals, nobody does this on scale 1, and nobody does this on vanilla dungeons. So they have a baseline for vanilla dungeons that is so easy you don't need a lower difficulty option, there are no enrage timers so you could beat it in full nomads. All optimal builds do is make speed runs quicker but they are not necessary. This is not possible I in raids, since if enough die or you don't dps hard enough (specific spec/build + skill level) the boss timer will run out and you will wipe. None of this is true in any dungeons or fractals.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, it is true in t4 and cms. Just because t1 is a faceroll and nobody cares about it doesn't extend the same attitude in *all* fractals. The problem would remain, just as it is present in t4/cm. People overrate their skill and will try to enter the groups where skill, build and composition matter. And they'll get kicked, because they're inexperienced and they'll fail. Just like it happens in fractals.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes but unlike raids, fractals have different difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard).

> > > >

> > > > So? What you claimed is still wrong.

> > >

> > > I never said I was trying to prevent all kicking. Just reduce it and give people more options which reduces it further.

> >

> > It. Will. Not. Happen. Clearly. The problem is people misjudge their skill and try to play on the difficulty they're not ready to. Just like in fractals.

>

> Well clearly pve world bosses is a baseline difficulty of nobody getting kicked, since they're so easy, there is no reason to scrutinized anyone, so they could make raids that easy and then nobody would be removed from any group. That would actually solve all of the problems related to grouping. What does a person misjudging their personal skill for content have to do with anything?

 

If you made the raid bosses that level of difficulty, they'd be world bosses. And shockingly, these already exist. So it is not necessary. You don't want to bother performing, but you don't want to get kicked? Easy - join the world boss train.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

> >

>

> It is solving the problem perfectely.

 

You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

 

> > This is why the quantity of rewards should be balanced to keep the harder mode attractive to those with any interest in it. In any case, "the path of least resistance" is still better than no alternate paths at all.

> >

>

> No it's not. Path of least resistance is far worse than no alternate paths because such balance of rewards is impossible.

 

But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices.

 

 

[nia.4725]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

> > >

> >

> > It is solving the problem perfectely.

>

> You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

>

> > > This is why the quantity of rewards should be balanced to keep the harder mode attractive to those with any interest in it. In any case, "the path of least resistance" is still better than no alternate paths at all.

> > >

> >

> > No it's not. Path of least resistance is far worse than no alternate paths because such balance of rewards is impossible.

>

> But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices.

>

>

 

Ohoni, you're twisting things and I think you know it pretty well.

 

If you don't like the meal on the table and you don't eat it, that won't make you starve. You just have to eat something different. Videogames are the same. You can't go to your mother saying "mama, I don't like this meal, cook a similar meal for me". Nah, this is what we eat today, you take it or leave it or you cook something else for yourself.

 

Raids are already enjoyable. But they're like every other content ingame -they are not enjoyable by everyone. The fact that you don't enjoy raids does not mean that raids aren't enjoyable, it's pure logic.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

>

 

You can always eat something else, so no problem.

 

> But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices.

>

 

No that's not better at all. And balancing the rewards is actually the primary concern. I'm just glad you are not in charge of balancing any video game.

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

> > >

> >

> > It is solving the problem perfectely.

>

> You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

 

Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing.

[sokeenoppa.5384]

Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

[Feanor.2358]

> @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

 

Works for some bosses (e.g. Matthias) even with the enrage timer. We've killed him like this, with 2 tanky chronos and 3 healers remaining alive, well into his enrage (2+ minutes).

 

Doesn't work for others. Like on Sabetha the platform will eventually break down and you'll wipe.

 

So depending on the boss it is either unnecessary or straight out not working.

[sokeenoppa.5384]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

>

> Works for some bosses (e.g. Matthias) even with the enrage timer. We've killed him like this, with 2 tanky chronos and 3 healers remaining alive, well into his enrage (2+ minutes).

>

> Doesn't work for others. Like on Sabetha the platform will eventually break down and you'll wipe.

>

> So depending on the boss it is either unnecessary or straight out not working.

 

Yeah ur right. But atleast it makes some bosses easier so its a step to "right direction"

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"nia.4725" said:

>If you don't like the meal on the table and you don't eat it, that won't make you starve. You just have to eat something different.

 

That's what I'm looking for here, the different option, the version of raiding that isn't as fail-prone and persnickety.

 

>Raids are already enjoyable. But they're like every other content ingame -they are not enjoyable by everyone. The fact that you don't enjoy raids does not mean that raids aren't enjoyable, it's pure logic.

 

And the fact that they're enjoyable for some doesn't mean that they couldn't benefit from being enjoyable to more.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

> >

>

> You can always eat something else, so no problem.

 

Yes, as soon as they add an easy mode option, but until then, there's nothing else to eat there.

 

> > But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices.

> >

>

> No that's not better at all. And balancing the rewards is actually the primary concern. I'm just glad you are not in charge of balancing any video game.

 

If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate. Balancing rewards is just a small part of what makes a game fun and interesting, and while it's certainly important, it's also WELL behind a great many other factors. I feel that philosophies like yours are what led to things like the game's economy, where it seems to be designed only to serve itself, to be a "balanced economy," rather than first being designed to actually serve the needs of the players, by providing affordable materials as needed, and providing a reasonable place to earn income based on unwanted loot.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

> > > >

> > >

> > > It is solving the problem perfectely.

> >

> > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

>

> Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing.

 

In case you weren't following, we were making a food analogy. Everything is relative. Nobody was comparing anything to literal human starving in terms of scale.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Yes, as soon as they add an easy mode option, but until then, there's nothing else to eat there.

>

 

So the rest of the game disappeared for you?

 

> If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate.

 

You know balancing rewards can be really simple: put different/exclusive rewards on different types of content. That's what most games do anyway, even single player ones.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Yes, as soon as they add an easy mode option, but until then, there's nothing else to eat there.

> >

>

> So the rest of the game disappeared for you?

 

We're talking about raids here, the rest of the game is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

> > If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate.

>

> You know balancing rewards can be really simple: put different/exclusive rewards on different types of content. That's what most games do anyway, even single player ones.

 

That's not balanced, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "balance," that's just "broadly distributed." Even best case scenario, to achieve balance you'd need to ensure that every unique exclusive reward was *equal* to every other, or at least equally weighted against the content it's found in. Just having different rewards in each area does absolutely nothing to promote balance.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> We're talking about raids here, the rest of the game is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

No it's not. You have access to 99.9% of the food options so you can certainly go eat those. No reason to starve here.

 

> That's not balanced, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "balance," that's just "broadly distributed."

 

No that's actually balanced and the most proper way of balancing the rewards in the first place.

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > That isn't solving the problem, that's ignoring it. It's like saying "if you don't like the meal on the table, then don't eat." Yeah, you've solved the problem of having to put up with the bad taste, but you still have an empty belly.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is solving the problem perfectely.

> > >

> > > You have an odd definition of "perfectly" if it involves starvation.

> >

> > Did you seriously just compare starvation to not getting a particular reward in a *video game*? Because if you did, with all due respect, you're acting like a spoiled brat. Pull yourself together man. This is embarrassing.

>

> In case you weren't following, we were making a food analogy. Everything is relative. Nobody was comparing anything to literal human starving in terms of scale.

>

>

 

Either pick better analogies or know when to drop them. You ended up saying something that both does not apply to the discussed matter, and is in extremely poor taste. I hope you see this cannot possibly further your agenda.

[yann.1946]

 

> > > But balance of rewards is a secondary consideration to making sure that there are enjoyable paths to it. If you have to choose between either A. only one path to a given reward that is only suitable to a small portion of the players, or B. two paths, but they are unbalanced, then B is still better than A, because unbalanced or not, players at least have choices.

> > >

> >

> > No that's not better at all. And balancing the rewards is actually the primary concern. I'm just glad you are not in charge of balancing any video game.

>

> If a game's primary concern is balancing reward then it's likely doomed out of the gate. Balancing rewards is just a small part of what makes a game fun and interesting, and while it's certainly important, it's also WELL behind a great many other factors. I feel that philosophies like yours are what led to things like the game's economy, where it seems to be designed only to serve itself, to be a "balanced economy," rather than first being designed to actually serve the needs of the players, by providing affordable materials as needed, and providing a reasonable place to earn income based on unwanted loot.

>

 

We'll the economy you're describing is a balanced one.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > Specifics are in that other thread. And here _you_ were the one assuming the same effect regardless of specifics.

> > >

> >

> > How so? When I see bad specifics I comment on them that's the point of having a discussion. It's not like when someone posts specifics everyone has to agree with them.

> > At least the comments on specifics can be better basis for a discussion than abstractions.

>

> Okay.

>

> So, at this point i am lost about whether you actually agree with me that the amount of people interested in easy mode would depend on specific implementation (how difficult it would be, for example) and that it at least _has_ potential to bring in significantly more players than are already raiding, or are you standing by your initial blanket statement that the amount of people interested in easy mode would be small, lesser than actual raiders now, _regardless_ of implementation.

>

> Could you please clarify?

>

>

 

They could make the easy mode Raids like "farming moa in Queensdale" difficulty so yes depending on the implementation they could bring way more players into Raids and even make Raids content for literally every player in the game.

However, a potential **sane** implementation, difficulty similar to dungeons, wouldn't give as a significant boost to the population as is commonly claimed (content for "everyone", content for the "majority", content "open for all") and I even question how high that population boost would even be to warrant working on a separate mode for it. And also another factor to consider is how many players will be siphoned away from normal mode by the lure of "easy rewards".

[Raizel.8175]

> @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

 

No.

 

For MMORPG-Standards, the enrage timers in GW2 are already really really lenient. Plus there has to be an indicator to show you that the group or several members of your group suck, so they are forced to improve. That's a fundamental mechanism in every MMORPG.

[sokeenoppa.5384]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

>

> No.

>

> For MMORPG-Standards, the enrage timers in GW2 are already really really lenient. Plus there has to be an indicator to show you that the group or several members of your group suck, so they are forced to improve. That's a fundamental mechanism in every MMORPG.

 

Yep. I dont care for easy mode, it was just my suggestion for one.

Also that indicator is called dps meter

[nia.4725]

> @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > @"Raizel.8175" said:

> > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > Istn it easy mode enough If we Took enrage timer away :D then ppl can run raids with bunkerbuilds and 4healers. It will take time but you won't fail :D

> >

> > No.

> >

> > For MMORPG-Standards, the enrage timers in GW2 are already really really lenient. Plus there has to be an indicator to show you that the group or several members of your group suck, so they are forced to improve. That's a fundamental mechanism in every MMORPG.

>

> Yep. I dont care for easy mode, it was just my suggestion for one.

> Also that indicator is called dps meter

 

The DPS meter can tell you the number but if the game does not make you learn when that number it's too low, enough or good, the DPS meter will be useless. That's why the enrage timer is necessary.