My opinion about raids

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Of course you can. It's called "being diverse".

>

> Diverse is *allowing* various people to play different modes, not designing the mode to be deliberately exclusive.

>

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > To further prove this find me any MMO in the last 30 years that has players that play 100% of all content released.

>

> The question is not whether a given player *does* play *every* element of the game, the question is rather *can* they play *any* element of the game. Most players don't have time to do *everything* that's available, but the things that do catch their interest should be accessible.

 

Everyone CAN play raids. Some players just dont want to (like you). I have no problem with players that dont want to play raids in curent form. That doesnt mean that they cannot play them. Raids provided diversity because they are designed for players that were bored by other parts of the game because they though it was too easy for them.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Of course you can. It's called "being diverse".

>

> Diverse is *allowing* various people to play different modes, not designing the mode to be deliberately exclusive.

>

 

That's exactly the point, though. In order to *allow* specific players to play *something*, you create content targeted specifically at them. And because the requirements vary too much, this will naturally exclude others from that content. That's fine - you also design content deliberately aimed at those others. This allows you to achieve MUCH greater diversity than you otherwise can.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>You got it wrong. Diverse is having content for lots of different kinds of players, not allowing various people to play different modes.

 

Ok, let's not get into semantics. We're discussing the term within the context of what is in the best interests of a whole game. My point is, it's not in the best interests of the game to design content to exclude people. It's best to design a *version* of it that appeals to a broad range of players, but to also have *versions* of it that appeal to the mainstream, so that as many players as possible can enjoy as much of the game as possible. It is not helpful to make the mode *deliberately* exclusionary, or to have *some* elements that a broad audience would like, and others that would drive them away from it.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>That's exactly the point, though. In order to allow specific players to play something, you create content targeted specifically at them.

 

But that doesn't mean that you can't *also* target everyone else with it. As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with raids continuing to exist in their current, challenging format, *so long as* there is *also* a version of them that is more *inclusive,* one that includes the unique elements of the raids, but in a more casual format that is more suited to the general tastes of the game's audience. *That* is the best use of content diversity, because it gives everyone what they want, without leaving anyone feeling left out.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Ok, let's not get into semantics. We're discussing the term within the context of what is in the best interests of a whole game.

The best interest of a whole game is to have content for a variety of players. Having "diverse" content means exactly that, that means some exclusiveness will appear, since players have different interests and skill levels. That way every type of player gets content that they want, it's why mmorpgs have such diverse content, to encompass as many player types as possible.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>The best interest of a whole game is to have content for a variety of players.

 

You should have read the rest of my post. I'll quote: "My point is, it's not in the best interests of the game to design content to exclude people. It's best to design a version of it that appeals to a broad range of players, but to also have versions of it that appeal to the mainstream, so that as many players as possible can enjoy as much of the game as possible. It is not helpful to make the mode deliberately exclusionary, or to have some elements that a broad audience would like, and others that would drive them away from it."

 

>Having "diverse" content means exactly that, that means some exclusiveness will appear, since players have different interests and skill levels.

 

But designed well, these would not be impediments. You would have a *version* of the content that might exclude some people, but you would *also* have a version that didn't, so that players that were "excluded" from version A would be missing out on absolutely nothing *other* than the reason for their inclusion. Every *other* aspect of the content would remain available to them.

 

 

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Ok, let's not get into semantics. We're discussing the term within the context of what is in the best interests of a whole game.

> The best interest of a whole game is to have content for a variety of players. Having "diverse" content means exactly that, that means some exclusiveness will appear, since players have different interests and skill levels. That way every type of player gets content that they want, it's why mmorpgs have such diverse content, to encompass as many player types as possible.

 

How often has he been told that? One, two, three dozen times in the last months? More often? This circlejerk isn't leading anywhere when one side clearly isn't willing (or able) to listen.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > Ok, let's not get into semantics. We're discussing the term within the context of what is in the best interests of a whole game.

> > The best interest of a whole game is to have content for a variety of players. Having "diverse" content means exactly that, that means some exclusiveness will appear, since players have different interests and skill levels. That way every type of player gets content that they want, it's why mmorpgs have such diverse content, to encompass as many player types as possible.

>

> How often has he been told that? One, two, three dozen times in the last months? More often? This kitten isn't leading anywhere when one side clearly isn't willing (or able) to listen.

 

*Definitely.* I keep repeating myself and it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. Thank you!

[CptAurellian.9537]

There was no need for another demonstration of what I said, but thank you anyway for doing so.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> >The best interest of a whole game is to have content for a variety of players.

> You should have read the rest of my post.

I read it, the answer stays the exact same. Diverse = having content for a variety of players.

 

> But designed well, these would not be impediments.

Not really, the word "diverse" is rather clear its meaning, content for a variety of playerstyles, of players with different skill levels, interests and abilities. Designed well means, adding those types of content to a game and then maintaining them.

Now please don't tell me to re-read your pointless "rest of your posts" because I'll simply tell you to do the same.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>I read it, the answer stays the exact same. Diverse = having content for a variety of players.

 

And as I said, *I agree with that,* but doing it *right* goes *beyond* just that. It's "having content for a variety of players" *plus* making it accessible to as many players as possible.

 

>Now please don't tell me to re-read your pointless "rest of your posts" because I'll simply tell you to do the same.

 

No need to get testy, you were the one that was ignoring the central point of my post.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> >I read it, the answer stays the exact same. Diverse = having content for a variety of players.

> And as I said, *I agree with that,* but doing it *right* goes *beyond* just that.

No it doesn't.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > You can't design an entire mode of the game to *not* be played by the overwhelming majority of players, particularly if there is story and rewards locked behind it (and *both* are true of GW2 raids).

>

> Of course you can. It's called "being diverse".

I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> >That's exactly the point, though. In order to allow specific players to play something, you create content targeted specifically at them.

>

> But that doesn't mean that you can't *also* target everyone else with it.

 

Actually it does. The player requirements are too different.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

 

Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

 

 

And yet games have been doing this for....well longer than i've been alive.

This can be showcased even on older consoles, there was this thing called a Demo disk. It was given out and had a wide ranging (one might say diverse) set of games on it ranging from kid friendly to grimdark and you know what everything on it wasn't for everyone but you can sure as heck bet those demos sold more copies (brought in people) from types of games they usually wouldn't play.

 

This is literally no different than the themepark style MMO GW2 is. Not every piece of content is for everyone. Not every object is for everyone. To chase that is an unhealthy obsession and worse design that leads to people having real mental and physical conditions.

 

 

[Tyson.5160]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

>

> Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

 

Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> >

> > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

>

> Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

 

How is it any different than "slapping" something like Ad Infinitum behind fractals? It requires quite a bit of dedication to get as well. In either case you have alternatives in PvP and WvW.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> >

> > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

>

> Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

 

I think we've already been through this in that other thread and a different version of Legendary Armor in PVE (not Envoy skin) would be nice. I don't see many people disagreeing with that (if any)

Edit: As you probably know I even posted my own suggestion, and contributed to another one on the subject.

[Chris McSwag.4683]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> >

> > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

>

> Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

 

It's a long term goal achievable for literally anyone that is willing to put in some effort. PvP and WvW have their own versions as well, which also requires effort.

There are plenty of things in game that cater to specific groups of people and that the majority will never have - but that doesn't mean its poorly designed.

 

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > > > @"Tyson.5160" said:

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

> > > > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > > > > According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

> > > > > > To be more specific:

> > > > > > Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players

> > > > > > Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players

> > > > > > Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players

> > > > > > Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players

> > > > > > Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.

> > > > > > According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vale Guardian: 28.6%

> > > > > > Slothasor: 16.7%

> > > > > > Escort: 25.7%

> > > > > > Cairn: 19.6%

> > > > > > Soulless Horror: 9.2%

> > > > >

> > > > > Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty is obviously a factor, but not the only one. VG has the highest percentage, but is by no means easier than Cairn or Escort.

> > >

> > > Part of the problem is that while regular raiders are completely fine with the idea of "just do whichever raid bosses work for you," that's not how most casual players would look at the situation, and certainly not how the raids were *designed* to be played. I'm not saying "you're doing it wrong," if it works for you, it works for you, but if ANet had *intended* players to skip and choose raid bosses then you wouldn't need to unlock them each week, a new player could just pick "Sabetha" off a list and just jump right in. But no, they designed them in a specific order, with a storyline that carries through, and to a lot of players, particularly those that aren't serious raiders, they *want* to do them in the order presented, 1, 2, 3. So the reason that a lot more people do VG than others, is because they went from VG to Gorseval, failed too often, and quit completely, without even *considering* skipping to much later bosses.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The intent was obviously to be played in order, by players who enjoy challenging content. The casual players were never much of a consideration, because they were never target audience for this content.

>

> You can't design an entire mode of the game to *not* be played by the overwhelming majority of players, particularly if there is story and rewards locked behind it (and *both* are true of GW2 raids).

 

It's an MMORPG. Just as a matter of fact, with the exception of the opening tutorial stories almost everything in the game is seen by a minority of players. A minority of players are going to find certain events. A minority of players are going to do certain jumping puzzles. Every race in the game is played by a minority of players.

 

It's why MMORPG are soooo risky to develop. Because the amount of content needed to create a fleshed out in game world quickly bloats the game's development costs into over a 100 million dollars and most players aren't even going to see all of it.

 

But there's still value in it in halving a wealth of content most people haven't done because it's important to still have things to do in an MMORPG. Like I said, MMORPGs are the All You Can Eat Buffet of video games.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

> > To be more specific:

> > Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players

> > Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players

> > Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players

> > Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players

> > Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

> >

> > Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.

> > According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

> >

> > Vale Guardian: 28.6%

> > Slothasor: 16.7%

> > Escort: 25.7%

> > Cairn: 19.6%

> > Soulless Horror: 9.2%

>

> Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

 

Well, first you have to factor in that VG came first, and Anet said that 20% of their total population **tried** raids when VG launched, not to mention the massive content drought where it was Raids (VG) or nothing. So it stands to reason that the highest number of players would have done that, as it would include all the people that learned they don't like raids.

 

Escort's high numbers are most likely due to the fact that is has become the go-to Raid for training/Introductory of raids to anyone looking to get into Raiding, so it's high success rate is to be expected.

 

Which leaves us to the other 3 raids, which reflect the amount of players that actually enjoy and do raids, which is around a 10% reduction of those that have done a raid.

 

Keep in mind however as far as GW2 Efficiency goes, this is only the players that are so invested into the game they would make an account to chart their progress, most likely this does not reflect upon a substantial number of the casual player base.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> > >

> > > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

> >

> > Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

>

> How is it any different than "slapping" something like Ad Infinitum behind fractals? It requires quite a bit of dedication to get as well. In either case you have alternatives in PvP and WvW.

 

And if the roles were reversed and Envoy Armor was locked behind ranked pvp, who would honestly be happy with that situation. Honestly.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> > >

> > > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

> >

> > Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

>

> How is it any different than "slapping" something like Ad Infinitum behind fractals? It requires quite a bit of dedication to get as well. In either case you have alternatives in PvP and WvW.

 

Then they should have made a raid Legendary back pack and left it at that.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > I think the point is "you can't design an entire mode of the game for a small, specific subgroup of community, while at the same time providing incentives that are supposed to pull into that mode players from outside of said subgroup". Well, obviously you can, but that's simply a bad design. Because there's no way that's not going to cause a lot of problems.

> > >

> > > Only that's how game modes work. Every piece of content and game mode has its own unique rewards, and those that did not for a time, are getting some because even Arenanet figured that giving rewards from multiple pieces of content wasn't working. It's not bad design, it's basic game design.

> > > Is it causing a lot of problems though? When things -actually- cause problems there is a response. But this specific subject there has been none, unless you call a problem some loud posters on the official forums. If it WAS a problem then you'd either get a response, or at the very least see reactions from the entire community, outside this forum, that would in turn cause a response. I think this entire "it's bad design and it causes problems" thing is being blown way out of proportions here.

> >

> > Giving a niche group of players raids is fine. Giving unique rewards is like Oblivion, Matthias Staff, Saul staff etc. Is fine too. My beef is slapping something like Legendary Armor behind Raids is where my gears begin to grind.

>

> How is it any different than "slapping" something like Ad Infinitum behind fractals? It requires quite a bit of dedication to get as well. In either case you have alternatives in PvP and WvW.

 

Well, for one they never said they intend fractals to be the only pve way of obtaining legendary backpack. Nor that they will never make any new legendary backpack skin. There were no players that claimed that fractals are the only content deserving of legendary backpack, and that Ad Infinitum is _the_ PvE leg backpack, and PvE doesn't need any more.

From the very beginning we knew, there will be choices, and even more choices in the future. And none of those choices would be better than the others.

 

If Anet, instead of sticking Envoy set behind raids, put another legendary backpack there, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > >I read it, the answer stays the exact same. Diverse = having content for a variety of players.

> > And as I said, *I agree with that,* but doing it *right* goes *beyond* just that.

> No it doesn't.

 

I disagree with that.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > >That's exactly the point, though. In order to allow specific players to play something, you create content targeted specifically at them.

> >

> > But that doesn't mean that you can't *also* target everyone else with it.

>

> Actually it does. The player requirements are too different.

 

I've already explained how you can do it quite easily. You just take the same content, and present an easier version of it for those players that don't enjoy challenging content. You get the challenging content for the players that want that, and the non-challenging version so that the other players miss out on nothing. Diversity of content without exclusion.

 

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

>This can be showcased even on older consoles, there was this thing called a Demo disk. It was given out and had a wide ranging (one might say diverse) set of games on it ranging from kid friendly to grimdark and you know what everything on it wasn't for everyone but you can sure as heck bet those demos sold more copies (brought in people) from types of games they usually wouldn't play.

 

The problem there is that games on a demo disc weren't interlinked. If you didn't want to play one of those games, you just didn't play it. It wasn't like you needed to complete the demo to Warhawk to unlock a cool skin for Jumping Flash. The problem here is that whether raiders like it or not, the raids *do* lock out story content that matters to people who play the rest of GW2, and they DO lock out skins that matter to those players as well, and as long as that remains true, players have good reason to want to break down that wall. I'm 100% behind you getting the raiding mode you want and leaving it well alone, *so long as* the remaining players can also get what they want in their own copy of the experience.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> How is it any different than "slapping" something like Ad Infinitum behind fractals? It requires quite a bit of dedication to get as well. In either case you have alternatives in PvP and WvW.

 

Say it with me now, 3, 2, 1, "two wrongs don't make a right."

 

> @"Chris McSwag.4683" said:

>It's a long term goal achievable for literally anyone that is willing to put in some effort. PvP and WvW have their own versions as well, which also requires effort.

 

Only if they enjoy raiding though. Otherwise they are left with only two options, A. Play a mode that they don't enjoy at all, or B. never get that thing. Neither is a positive option. That's why there should be an alternate mode, so that players don't have to pick between two bad options, and can instead *enjoy* the play experience.

 

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> A minority of players are going to find certain events. A minority of players are going to do certain jumping puzzles. Every race in the game is played by a minority of players.

 

But they *can* find and do those things if they *want* to. That's the distinction. Not every player finds every element of the game, but it isn't *deliberately* excluding anyone.