My opinion about raids

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > Tex, if WvW is a dead mode, then Raids is sitting there with it. Please tell me, if Raids didn’t have Legendary Armor, you know rewards, would the same amount of people be playing it today?

> > >

> > > Yes every person that **plays** would still play Raids even without Legendary Armor.

> > Trust me, not everyone. Not even close. If you really think that way, then you probably simply have a vastly different type of ingame friends/acquaintances than i do.

> >

> > >Hall of Chains doesn't have Legendary Armor rewards but it is still being played.

> > It still has LI. And it _is_played much less than previous wings. I know a lot of regular and semi-regular raiders that skip it completely (or at least started skipping it after getting that one kill for each boss there, to unlock coalescence).

> >

> >

> >

>

> And I know regular and semi-regular raiders who *only* clear W5 recently. Anecdotal evidence either way.

>

> By the way, on the topic of dungeons... Dungeons didn't just die when they became non-profitable. They died when they became non-profitable *AND* when the game offered better instanced content. The extrapolation to raids dying if their loot suddenly became poor fails to account for that second reason. Raids are the best instanced content in the game. And they are not that profitable anyway. So that particular conclusion seems quite the stretch.

 

I'm pretty sure that what ultimately killed dungeons was not the reward nerf (even if it _was_ a major point), nor introduction of raids. It was the simple fact that Anet said "they're dead". People _knew_ that it would be a content with no future.

If anet said today that from now on they won't touch raids anymore, i'm sure that their popularity would plummet even if there were no other changes to them whatsoever. If it were to be done alongside a reward nerf/removing reward exclusivity, the content would be practically dead within half a year at most.

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > What was "badly designed" in Raids is that they were developed to be content for static groups and not for pugs. "A pug will defeat some of the encounters but not all of them", I'm paraphrasing here until I find the exact wording, but it was something similar to this. So things like LI, KP, "toxicity", "elitism", that appear exclusively in pugs, weren't part of the design process to begin with. Perhaps that's why there were no systems in place to make LI and KP more visible without pinging and chat commands.

> >

> > Maybe it's time to re-think Raids and how pugs work in Raids.

>

> Given that pug groups kill Dhuum with CM active, I really question that conclusion. *Some* pugs will fail encounters. But not all of them.

 

As maddoctor mentioned above, it's about the design goals, not the reality. Originally it seems Anet didn't expect raids to be puggable and thus didn't include any plans for that. That's why, for example, initially you couldn't lfg raid squads and had to use workarounds.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> What was "badly designed" in Raids is that they were developed to be content for static groups and not for pugs.

 

Agreed, that was a bad design decision for GW2, given how very pug-oriented this game is. They definitely should have considered these factors from the initial design phases. "how do we accommodate raids into GW2's culture?"

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Agreed, that was a bad design decision for GW2, given how very pug-oriented this game is.

 

Well to be perfectly honest they even said that they didn't *expect* their players to beat Raids (at least the hardest encounters) in pugs.

Everything mentioned in the OP, Elitism, Training, and Save Points do not apply to static groups (if they do, please leave your static group immediately)

One way to help is by making the game pug-friendly. However, another approach is to first try to make finding said static groups easier. I can think of a few solutions towards that goal:

 

A) An in-game guild browser: obviously not only something for Raids, but would help the entire game, but it would certainly help Raids too

B ) Guild rewards for running Raids as guilds. Not raiding guilds that gather players from all over, but the other "normal" guilds getting rewarded for running Raids together. Something like guild missions but in Raids. I know you can get trophies to make decorations but that's hardly enough (you get those if you run with pugs).

C) In game guild tools like Calendars and Event sign up forms, so guilds can organize themselves without using external programs. Like the browser, this would help every guild, but more so guilds that need to organize their in-game activities better, including running Raids as a guild.

D) A way to share your entire build with others. Build templates is great, sharing them is even better. That way you can tell what others are running and give advice on what they should change (talking about guilds here, the effect on pugs is irrelevant, it could be from within the guild panel so as not to affect pugs at all)

 

Just 4 things that can improve guild activities and guild content, all of them can make Raids more accessible without adding a single new line of content.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Well to be perfectly honest they even said that they didn't expect their players to beat Raids (at least the hardest encounters) in pugs.

 

Right, that was a terrible expectation to make. This is a pug game, you have to expect pugs in *all* situations, and design all content based on that expectation.

 

>However, another approach is to first try to make finding said static groups easier. I can think of a few solutions towards that goal:

 

No. Plenty of people want no part of statics, and came to GW2 to get away from statics. The culture has moved on from WoW.

 

 

 

 

[Turin.6921]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Well to be perfectly honest they even said that they didn't *expect* their players to beat Raids (at least the hardest encounters) in pugs.

> Everything mentioned in the OP, Elitism, Training, and Save Points do not apply to static groups (if they do, please leave your static group immediately)

> One way to help is by making the game pug-friendly. However, another approach is to first try to make finding said static groups easier. I can think of a few solutions towards that goal:

>

> A) An in-game guild browser: obviously not only something for Raids, but would help the entire game, but it would certainly help Raids too

> B ) Guild rewards for running Raids as guilds. Not raiding guilds that gather players from all over, but the other "normal" guilds getting rewarded for running Raids together. Something like guild missions but in Raids. I know you can get trophies to make decorations but that's hardly enough (you get those if you run with pugs).

> C) In game guild tools like Calendars and Event sign up forms, so guilds can organize themselves without using external programs. Like the browser, this would help every guild, but more so guilds that need to organize their in-game activities better, including running Raids as a guild.

> D) A way to share your entire build with others. Build templates is great, sharing them is even better. That way you can tell what others are running and give advice on what they should change (talking about guilds here, the effect on pugs is irrelevant, it could be from within the guild panel so as not to affect pugs at all)

>

> Just 4 things that can improve guild activities and guild content, all of them can make Raids more accessible without adding a single new line of content.

 

I fully support that. Any QoL improvements like these could solve most problems. Even just an extra tab for raid tanning in LFG that training groups can use in-game would go a long way and it is dead simple to make.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> No. Plenty of people want no part of statics, and came to GW2 to get away from statics. The culture has moved on from WoW.

 

"Guild" is in the name of the game. Guilds have always been part of the game, empowering guilds to get more players easily and then offer them more ways to play together and have fun should be an essential part of the game. They tried it with guild missions, then ignored them for years, they tried it with guild halls, and didn't really update that either in a while.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > No. Plenty of people want no part of statics, and came to GW2 to get away from statics. The culture has moved on from WoW.

>

> "Guild" is in the name of the game. Guilds have always been part of the game, empowering guilds to get more players easily and then offer them more ways to play together and have fun should be an essential part of the game. They tried it with guild missions, then ignored them for years, they tried it with guild halls, and didn't really update that either in a while.

 

There's two different approaches to the guild idea that seem to be clashing here. The social approach and the utilitarian approach. In first, the guild is a community of people, that you end up playing with. In the second, the guild is _a tool_ to doing a certain type (or types) of content.

 

Raids heavily encourage the second approach, but it happens to be something many people actively dislike.

 

Personally i have no problem with the game encouraging me to play together with my friends as a group. I do have a problem when the game encourages me to choose people i play with not on basis of friendship, but on basis of the content i play.

 

Notice by the way, that the name is "Guild **Wars**", not "Guilds". If you treat the name as something that should influence the design, don't drop half of the name when it doesn't fit your argument.

 

Notice also, that they do have a WvW team (the "Wars" part of the name), but they _don't_ have the guild team anymore. That should tell you something about the relative importance of those two parts of the name. And the state of WvW should tell you even more about how (un) important the name currently is as far as game design goes.

 

[Turin.6921]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

>

> Personally i have no problem with the game encouraging me to play together with my friends as a group. I do have a problem when the game encourages me to choose people i play with not on basis of friendship, but on basis of the content i play.

>

 

But in-game friendship are build based on the content you play. I do not see how these two are separate. I do not see the how having content that requires people with specific tastes to group up as a hurdle to make friendships. On the contrary it does encourage them.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>"Guild" is in the name of the game.

 

It is, and "Guild Wars" is in the full name, even though there's really no "guild wars" in the entire game. It's kind of weird when you think about it. WoW actually has "Warcraft" in the name, even though there really isn't any actual "war" going on most of the time. Words, huh?

 

>Guilds have always been part of the game, empowering guilds to get more players easily and then offer them more ways to play together and have fun should be an essential part of the game. They tried it with guild missions, then ignored them for years, they tried it with guild halls, and didn't really update that either in a while.

 

Yeah, but this shouldn't get in the way of players pugging the content they want to play. I'm 100% in favor of tools that make it easier to group and guild and whatever, that's nice, I'm just pointing out that it would be foolish to insist on that being the "right" way to run this content.

 

The first rule of an established MMO, design around the players that you have, not the players that you wish you had. You can make nudges to attract other players, but it needs to 100% satisfy the existing players first and foremost, because MMOs don't tend to shift populations significantly, they just contract at different paces.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Yeah, but this shouldn't get in the way of players pugging the content they want to play. I'm 100% in favor of tools that make it easier to group and guild and whatever, that's nice, I'm just pointing out that it would be foolish to insist on that being the "right" way to run this content.

 

It depends if it reaches the numbers they want or not and according to developer posts, Raids exceeded their expectations. So making sure they stay that way is important.

Pugging is another story altogether and hardly my concern, focusing on making the guild experience better is what I want and why I made the post. Do you have any actual feedback to offer on that particular suggestion?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> There's two different approaches to the guild idea that seem to be clashing here. The social approach and the utilitarian approach. In first, the guild is a community of people, that you end up playing with. In the second, the guild is _a tool_ to doing a certain type (or types) of content.

 

That's why I say to provide reason for players to play with their guild, as in their "main" guild, not a secondary guild created specifically for Raiding.

 

> Notice also, that they do have a WvW team (the "Wars" part of the name), but they _don't_ have the guild team anymore. That should tell you something about the relative importance of those two parts of the name. And the state of WvW should tell you even more about how (un) important the name currently is as far as game design goes.

I know that. Why not change it?

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> It depends if it reaches the numbers they want or not and according to developer posts, Raids exceeded their expectations. So making sure they stay that way is important.

 

That's obviously not all that matters though. It also matters whether *players* are satisfied with that result. If it meets the standard ANet wanted, but there are enough players that still want better, then it is in ANet's interests to produce better.

 

>Pugging is another story altogether and hardly my concern, focusing on making the guild experience better is what I want and why I made the post. Do you have any actual feedback to offer on that particular suggestion?

 

See above.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > It depends if it reaches the numbers they want or not and according to developer posts, Raids exceeded their expectations. So making sure they stay that way is important.

>

> That's obviously not all that matters though. It also matters whether *players* are satisfied with that result. If it meets the standard ANet wanted, but there are enough players that still want better, then it is in ANet's interests to produce better.

>

And is completely beside the post I made. Do you actually have any feedback on it at all?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > It depends if it reaches the numbers they want or not and according to developer posts, Raids exceeded their expectations. So making sure they stay that way is important.

> >

> > That's obviously not all that matters though. It also matters whether *players* are satisfied with that result. If it meets the standard ANet wanted, but there are enough players that still want better, then it is in ANet's interests to produce better.

> >

> And is completely beside the post I made. Do you actually have any feedback on it at all?

 

"I'm 100% in favor of tools that make it easier to group and guild and whatever, that's nice, I'm just pointing out that it would be foolish to insist on that being the "right" way to run this content."

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Turin.6921" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> >

> > Personally i have no problem with the game encouraging me to play together with my friends as a group. I do have a problem when the game encourages me to choose people i play with not on basis of friendship, but on basis of the content i play.

> >

>

> But in-game friendship are build based on the content you play.

In-game, yes. In-game friendship should not be a priority over prior friendship however. Nor should it be forced.

 

> I do not see how these two are separate. I do not see the how having content that requires people with specific tastes to group up as a hurdle to make friendships. On the contrary it does encourage them.

It's not a hurdle to make friendship. I don't want to be forced to make friends in order to do a specific content, though. Not only it feels way too utilitarian and false to me, but also i'd vastly prefer to _keep_ the friendship i already have.

 

Not to mention, being a partymember good enough to do the content with and being a likable person are separate traits. I'd rather not be forced to choose.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Yeah, but this shouldn't get in the way of players pugging the content they want to play. I'm 100% in favor of tools that make it easier to group and guild and whatever, that's nice, I'm just pointing out that it would be foolish to insist on that being the "right" way to run this content.

>

> It depends if it reaches the numbers they want or not and according to developer posts, Raids exceeded their expectations.

Because they didn't expect them to be pugged. Which probably mean their expectations were really low.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > There's two different approaches to the guild idea that seem to be clashing here. The social approach and the utilitarian approach. In first, the guild is a community of people, that you end up playing with. In the second, the guild is _a tool_ to doing a certain type (or types) of content.

>

> That's why I say to provide reason for players to play with their guild, as in their "main" guild, not a secondary guild created specifically for Raiding.

That can be done only by changes to the actuall content. It's not the lack of guild features that is a problem, but the way the content itself encourages certain types of behaviour.

 

>

> > Notice also, that they do have a WvW team (the "Wars" part of the name), but they _don't_ have the guild team anymore. That should tell you something about the relative importance of those two parts of the name. And the state of WvW should tell you even more about how (un) important the name currently is as far as game design goes.

> I know that. Why not change it?

Brand recognition.

 

 

[STIHL.2489]

> @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > The problem is that the people who do raids, foolishly think that everyone is like them, and will go after the loot, and the path of least resistance to the best loot... hence their continual parroting of the patently false belief that any content or game mode would die without it's rewards.

> > > >

> > > > Only the most closed minded and blind to the larger discussion think this is purely about a single game mode or content. It's about player base that flocks to that kind of content. Raids attract loot chasers, people that want loot above all else, and the best kind of loot to this greed driven demographic is loot that they feel others can't get.

> > > >

> > > > Truth will be Truth.. regardless if you don't like it.

> > >

> > > Dude if you want to make any progress you've got to stop speaking in absolutes. It is absolutely impossible to predict the reason for why every single person plays or doesn't play a particular set of content.

> >

> > Huh? Did you miss how predictable and easy Anet killed Dungeon content by simply modify the rewards?

>

> Nowhere in your post that I commented on did you mention dungeons. Not really relevant to the topic of this thread. I do find this interesting though:

>

> "The problem is that the people who do raids, foolishly think that everyone is like them, and will go after the loot, and the path of least resistance to the best loot... hence their continual parroting of the patently false belief that any content or game mode would die without it's rewards."

>

> What is interesting is I don't know any raiders who think like that but it seems like you do but based on your other posts I would guess that you don't raid often. Thonk

>

> Anyone who has any interest in the legendary armor knows that the raiding requirements are the easy part...its the 300 provisoner tokens that are the "challenging content" xD

>

>

 

You're decision to cherry pick my post, does not change the truth of my point.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Because they didn't expect them to be pugged. Which probably mean their expectations were really low.

Is the number of players pugging Raids higher or smaller than the number of static groups?

 

> That can be done only by changes to the actuall content. It's not the lack of guild features that is a problem, but the way the content itself encourages certain types of behaviour.

Not true. There is no need to change the actual content when there is no problem with the content itself, everything mentioned by the OP isn't a problem with the content, the content is fine. It's a problem with random groups on the internet. Giving guilds some extra tools so as players can avoid pugging altogether is what I suggested.

 

Specifically:

Guild browser: easier to find guilds for Raids or anything else

Guild rewards: so guilds play together instead of their players joining extra raiding guilds

Guild tools: to better organize guild runs without the need of external applications

Build share: easier to identify issues and solve them, easier to provide guidance and offer advice

[Tyson.5160]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > What was "badly designed" in Raids is that they were developed to be content for static groups and not for pugs. "A pug will defeat some of the encounters but not all of them", I'm paraphrasing here until I find the exact wording, but it was something similar to this. So things like LI, KP, "toxicity", "elitism", that appear exclusively in pugs, weren't part of the design process to begin with. Perhaps that's why there were no systems in place to make LI and KP more visible without pinging and chat commands.

> > >

> > > Maybe it's time to re-think Raids and how pugs work in Raids.

> >

> > Given that pug groups kill Dhuum with CM active, I really question that conclusion. *Some* pugs will fail encounters. But not all of them.

>

> It's not my conclusion, it's what the developers said. All I'm saying is that when they developed the Raids they didn't think about pugs and how they would group, it was more of an afterthought.

 

I recall one of the dev posts in HoT that Raids were never developed for pugs, they were developed for guilds. Which is curious because if that was there stance, then Guilds would of have been attached like Guild Missions or where you can only go into a raid with people from your Guild. Had they gone that route there

wouldn’t be pug toxicity.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

> > > > What was "badly designed" in Raids is that they were developed to be content for static groups and not for pugs. "A pug will defeat some of the encounters but not all of them", I'm paraphrasing here until I find the exact wording, but it was something similar to this. So things like LI, KP, "toxicity", "elitism", that appear exclusively in pugs, weren't part of the design process to begin with. Perhaps that's why there were no systems in place to make LI and KP more visible without pinging and chat commands.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe it's time to re-think Raids and how pugs work in Raids.

> > >

> > > Given that pug groups kill Dhuum with CM active, I really question that conclusion. *Some* pugs will fail encounters. But not all of them.

> >

> > It's not my conclusion, it's what the developers said. All I'm saying is that when they developed the Raids they didn't think about pugs and how they would group, it was more of an afterthought.

>

> I recall one of the dev posts in HoT that Raids were never developed for pugs, they were developed for guilds. Which is curious because if that was there stance, then Guilds would of have been attached like Guild Missions or where you can only go into a raid with people from your Guild. Had they gone that route there

> wouldn’t be pug toxicity.

 

Yes exactly we are probably talking about the same quote. That's why I made my suggestions, to stay true to that part and make it better.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Because they didn't expect them to be pugged. Which probably mean their expectations were really low.

> Is the number of players pugging Raids higher or smaller than the number of static groups?

I'd guess that probably it _is_ higher (and significantly so), but it _is_ only a guess, and i have no way of verifying that. So it can be the other way around, although it would surprise me (from my experience, even many static group players pug now and them, and a lot of "static" groups aren't fullsize and use pugs for their empty slots).

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > That can be done only by changes to the actuall content. It's not the lack of guild features that is a problem, but the way the content itself encourages certain types of behaviour.

> Not true. There is no need to change the actual content when there is no problem with the content itself, everything mentioned by the OP isn't a problem with the content, the content is fine. It's a problem with random groups on the internet. Giving guilds some extra tools so as players can avoid pugging altogether is what I suggested.

>

> Specifically:

> Guild browser: easier to find guilds for Raids or anything else

> Guild rewards: so guilds play together instead of their players joining extra raiding guilds

> Guild tools: to better organize guild runs without the need of external applications

> Build share: easier to identify issues and solve them, easier to provide guidance and offer advice

 

Notice that all those points provide benefits only for guilds actually doing raids. If you happen to be in a guild, and you realize that for you to have a significant chance of succesfully raiding you have to find a different group of players to do that with them, none of your suggestions is going to change that.

 

None of those will "provide reason for players to play with their guild, as in their "main" guild, not a secondary guild created specifically for Raiding".

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Notice that all those points provide benefits only for guilds actually doing raids. If you happen to be in a guild, and you realize that for you to have a significant chance of succesfully raiding you have to find a different group of players to do that with them, none of your suggestions is going to change that.

 

The guild browser is there to make it easier to fill the spots without using the LFG

The tools and the rewards are there to make the job of the guild organizers easier.

[Saint Sated.2698]

> @"Turin.6921" said:

> > @"Saint Sated.2698" said:

> > Tldr: Gw2's "1%" that sets the mark for speed clearing end game PvE content is toxic for the community as a whole because they spread lies that "this won't work in raids / not viable" and the community follows suit, telling newcomers what their overlords have decided is the ONLY way to play this content.

>

> Except that this 1% very clearly states that they are presenting optimal and not viable builds and constantly state that none should be a build kitten. Metabattle even has a separate section for easy viable raid builds. Youtubers like Nike have made videos with easy viable builds different than the optimal. Training discords as well.

>

> Its the pugs that do not care to understand the game enough and make the mistake of confusing viable with optimal. But no...lets accuse the people actually spending their time making theory crafting the rest of us can use. They are good at the game so they must be elitist by default. Any misconception that the community has must be their fault. Not the community's as a whole.

>

 

This is actually a much more fair argument than I initially realized. I suppose I was wrong to say "these guilds are the blame" when it's the way a large part of the raid community think (optimal > viable, and somewhat understandably so, who wants to spend more time than necessary). Could it be more of a maturity problem among the pugs? I almost think they're taking whatever implied elitism which comes with the territory of being a top raider as their own and pushing that negative impression out in a way that puts others down.

[Turin.6921]

> @"Saint Sated.2698" said:

>Could it be more of a maturity problem among the pugs? I almost think they're taking whatever implied elitism which comes with the territory of being a top raider as their own and pushing that negative impression out in a way that puts others down.

 

That is pretty much it i believe. And i would say that the same dynamic you see in any game or any activity that requires some expertize in general. It is said that half knowledge is worse than no knowledge. For me the confusion between viable and optimal is this. Add the human ego into the picture and you do not need the top players to imply anything for misconceptions to be produced.

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > Tex, if WvW is a dead mode, then Raids is sitting there with it. Please tell me, if Raids didn’t have Legendary Armor, you know rewards, would the same amount of people be playing it today?

> > >

> > > Yes every person that **plays** would still play Raids even without Legendary Armor.

> > Trust me, not everyone. Not even close. If you really think that way, then you probably simply have a vastly different type of ingame friends/acquaintances than i do.

> >

> > >Hall of Chains doesn't have Legendary Armor rewards but it is still being played.

> > It still has LI. And it _is_played much less than previous wings. I know a lot of regular and semi-regular raiders that skip it completely (or at least started skipping it after getting that one kill for each boss there, to unlock coalescence).

> >

> >

> >

>

> And I know regular and semi-regular raiders who *only* clear W5 recently. Anecdotal evidence either way.

>

> By the way, on the topic of dungeons... Dungeons didn't just die when they became non-profitable. They died when they became non-profitable *AND* when the game offered better instanced content. The extrapolation to raids dying if their loot suddenly became poor fails to account for that second reason. Raids are the best instanced content in the game. And they are not that profitable anyway. So that particular conclusion seems quite the stretch.

 

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

[Tyson.5160]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

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

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

> > > > > Tex, if WvW is a dead mode, then Raids is sitting there with it. Please tell me, if Raids didn’t have Legendary Armor, you know rewards, would the same amount of people be playing it today?

> > > >

> > > > Yes every person that **plays** would still play Raids even without Legendary Armor.

> > > Trust me, not everyone. Not even close. If you really think that way, then you probably simply have a vastly different type of ingame friends/acquaintances than i do.

> > >

> > > >Hall of Chains doesn't have Legendary Armor rewards but it is still being played.

> > > It still has LI. And it _is_played much less than previous wings. I know a lot of regular and semi-regular raiders that skip it completely (or at least started skipping it after getting that one kill for each boss there, to unlock coalescence).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > And I know regular and semi-regular raiders who *only* clear W5 recently. Anecdotal evidence either way.

> >

> > By the way, on the topic of dungeons... Dungeons didn't just die when they became non-profitable. They died when they became non-profitable *AND* when the game offered better instanced content. The extrapolation to raids dying if their loot suddenly became poor fails to account for that second reason. Raids are the best instanced content in the game. And they are not that profitable anyway. So that particular conclusion seems quite the stretch.

>

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

 

That is not a big surprise.