Raiding is on the verge of destroying huge segments of the GW2 community, if it hasn't already

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > It's probably not the 2 hours a week players making up that 50 percent in revenue.

> Probably not. Although that doesn't mean it's hardcores that do that spending.

>

> Hardcores in general spend their cash on p2w upgrades, as well as some QoL (especially the ones that increase their effectiveness - inventory increase, movement boosts, etc). They also prefer to get their stuff in game over buying it if there's an option. On the other hand, they do not spend all that much on vanity (they'd rather go for ingame exclusives for it, as for them vanity is not about looks, but about prestige). It's the social players that spend the most on vanity. In MMO, that's usually the so called "dedicated casuals" group (those that play a lot, but with a more casual approach to it) that makes the most of whales (in western style MMOs anyway, in asian style MMO with significant pw2 options the breakdown shifts more towards hardcores). Also, many whales actually play not as much (although it's stil a significant amount) and use real cash as one of the ways to "catch up".

> People buying raid kills, instead of getting them the hardcore way? They're often whales.

 

**[CITATION NEEDED]**

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

This post is overly dramatic on the situation, Raids have been in game for a long time now and have not destroyed any community, and from all accounts are doing a lot better than the Devs had thought they would, and working as they intended them to.

[Talindra.4958]

> @"Shikaru.7618" said:

> > @"Jockum.1385" said:

> > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > You do not need 80g exotics to play raids. Stop pretending you do. [...]

> > > You guild barely even plays dungeons. Raids are not for them. [....]

> > >

> > > Anet should not invest in instanced content for players who will never go back to it. They are better off investing in living story.

> > >

> > > If you hate the game so much because there is not alot of forced instanced content for casuals. Then you should find another game.

> > >

> > I really recommend to read this thread again and more carefully because you seem to lack the understanding of this topic here.

> > I know that GW2 is not meant for teamplayers or for me, but I already wrote this earlier. I personally have discouraged roughly 30 people from buying GW2 for this exact reason and I haven't bought PoF for the same reason. I'll do a bit WvW, some fractals - and when bored maybe some open world. But I'm not willing to invest money into a game like this anymore.

> > What you really should keep in mind: usually there are by far more casual and coregamers than hardcoreplayers. When there is a group of people which are playing team hardcorecontent as raids it is questionable to asume that there is no one who would play casual or coregamer teamcontent. When content for more casual players is not worth developing it (despite GW1 being a full game catering to exact these players) then raids are ofc also not worth it.

> >

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > >

> > > This is the simple reality:

> > > - players as casual as you describe are 99% of the time not interested in raids, fractals or dungeons. Dungeons being the hail-marry exception when they do a path 1nce a year with other guildies. IF they do dungeon paths, most do not

> > > - dungeons are not raids. Dungeons and low rank fractals do not require any type of setup. High level fractals (CMs specifically) and raids require specific setups and a minimum knowledge and understanding of ones class. By your own admission this is not present with super casual players. That is not a rift, that is content designed for a different type of player, from the conception

> >

> > While it is true that quite a lot are only interested in solo content (see those threads asking for solomodes for dungeons etc.) there are also teamoriented players. How big each group is, is speculative since GW2 offers no teamcontent. To asume the amount of hardcoreplayers being bigger than the amount of casual- or coregamers is extremly optimistic. Usually there are by far more casuals. I think it's safe to asume that there are more players interested in casual group content than in hardcore group content as raids. It is also definately wrong to say "doing dungeons only once or twice = not interested in them". Many players also do story only once, too. But all of this aside:

> > If you have read forums in the past years you have for sure seen many threads asking for new dungeons, asking for new fractals, asking for easymode raids, asking for new guildmissions. More casual players are usually less engaged in a game and not as active in forums as hardcoreplayer.

> > I asume you have also seen all those threads complaining about zerg meta. Or too strict fractal requirements. Maybe you have also seen some of the threads where guilds/players said that GW2 has nothing to offer for them since dungeons are dead. There have been plenty of complaints, bc raids don't cover the needs of all former dungeon runners. So obviously there are players caring about easier teamcontent.

> >

> > No, it is a rift by game design, as explained by me earlier. You simply should not have to recruit a open world player and have to teach him his class mechanics. This is a proof of a terrible designed game. A game should not be splitted into "does not need to know anything about his class mechanics in endgame content and still performs well (open world)" and "needs to know everything (raids)". There should be content in between closing this gap. Lots of content. It's called "learning curve", not "learning cliff". Many small steps form a curve, not one huge kitten step from "111 in green equip" to "needs to know his class rotations and mechanics, boss mechanics and be full asc". There really should be something in between, it should not be necessary to explain basics as CC in raids.

> >

> > Usually content is designed like a pyramid, a big basis of easy content for everyone and a small top of challenging content. You can climb up step by step, if you leave out the small top you still got access to 95% of all content. This goes for open world content (map completion is a lot, triple trouble or other challenging content is not 50% of all open world content). And this should also be true for group content. But it isn't. And that's a problem. Not only for the (imho) bigger crowd of casual- and core- teamplayers, it also results in less people advancing into raids and in consequence in less raid content bc too small playerbase to justify dev effort.

> >

> > > - the gear you described is not even required for raids. Raids have been cleared in greens. Even if

> > Shows your lack of basic understanding. Grab a group of terrible open world players which struggle in T1 fractals and try to teach them more difficult content, especially raids. You'll be happy about each extra % of damage. Those who cleaned raids in greens are by far no "111 faceroll" noobs. If you think so you should probably debate that with the involved guilds and not with me. Maybe try to understand that good players are able to do stuff with a handicap. For a bad player an additional handicap is a problem. In theory bad/new players should have a by far better equipment to learn boss mechanics and the better they get the worse their equip can get to keep content interesting. Such "negative level ups" are afaik a theoretical concept in game design.

> >

> > Teamcontent is not per se challenging content. That's nonsense. It wasn't about raids being meant as challenging content. That's ok. The serious lack of easier teamcontent is not ok.

> >

> > > Raid content in GW2 makes up approximately 5% of all content added.

> >

> > It's roughly 50%. I am refering here the whole time to teamcontent. Or should I now start counting PVP seasons as challenging content and start complaining about too much challenging content? There is no need for a new raids, bc there is a new pvp season? Is it this what you are claiming? Maybe try to understand that challenging content as triple trouble does not cater to raid players? Maybe try to understand that guilds want to play content together as a guild and GW2 offers nothing for such players? Open world content can't replace instanced teamcontent.

> > > Your problem is not with the design or difficulty of raid content, it's with lacking alternatives on the lower end.

> > That's exactly what I said some posts earlier, yes. If HoT and PoF both would've added 10 new dungeons all of this would be a very different debate. But they didn't. Conclusion is: GW2 is not made for casual- or coregamers interested in teamcontent. If you got 3 friends and are looking for a MMO, GW2 is the wrong game for you. If you are looking for a MMO but want to play it without having to play with other players or having to team GW2 is doing a good job. But I personally think that such players should better stick with Skyrim etc., I'm also not asking for Battlefield to be turned into a racing sim.

>

> I will agree with you that guild wars 2 has a terrible learning curve within the game itself. This is exacerbated by the fact that there exists no content in the game where hardcore and casual players mix well. Dungeons used to fill this role of bridging the gap. The difficulty requirements were low enough to be accessible and created a space where you could learn tactics and class mechanics organically from more experienced players that pugged into your party. Nowadays we have t4 fractal groups devoid of most skilled players because they're all in 100kp cm groups or in raids.

>

> I dont think easy mode versions of existing raids is the answer either since those rewards have been for the most part skill gates (blah blah blah raid sellers) but content like lair of the snowmen I'd love to see more of to help bridge the gap.

 

I think you nail it..

When fractal first came out.. we have bunch of dungeon run people.. moving to play fractal.. then raid came together with hot and they kill dungeon at that point which was a total bad idea. Bunch of people quit after and ofc we have new players to fill but totally agree we are lack of that stepping stones. You can't expect ppl from open world to go raid... There's no gap filler

[Jockum.1385]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> Listings aren't pointless if you compare the activity of players. Dungeon lfgs aren't filling in seconds, same stands for low level fractals. On the other side you have a very active T4 lfg and the same for raids.

You are refering to dungeons in 2018. Maddoc was refering to pre HoT. Back in the days dungeons filled quickly.

If you want to go by listings you need to count all listings which pop up in a defined time (lets say 30 mins). For dungeons you'd also need to sum up all different dungeons lfgs. You can't simply compare a single dungeon to all raids.

If you just open up the lfg and count lfgs you obviously get nonsense results bc you get those 5 cm groups which are searching since 30 mins for a druid ruin the results. Ofc you need to compare the same day at the same time. You also need to consider resets. Its pointless to compare fractals around reset when there is increased activity.

 

While gold was indeed a motivation for many players: this is true for all content. Raids without any rewards would be dead content, too. Open world content without good rewards is usually also pretty dead.

 

> And it was only the dungeon running community that asked for more team content. [...]The "casual" group was never that organized that vocal and that creative when it came to group content for them.

No, not only the dungeon community asked for more team content. You find these debates since release in more or less all guild wars forums in varying forms. Not only by dungeonrunners. Many players struggled with difficulty of dungeons and asked for easier teamcontent. People ask(ed) for guildcontent, sometimes spezified as instanced - not only content for big guilds. Or see those people asking for wintersday content to be premade-team again (tixxx?). You can also see that some people care about teamcontent when they are asking for advice on guildactivities. Or players which have asked to bring back a trinity to GW2, which wanted to run healers in instanced content. Or those zerk-meta threads. Most of them were not part of the dungeon community, but were interested in instanced team content.

 

I ran low level fractals with my guild when they were new. They were easier than dungeons for us. Anet later (2013) added more difficult fractals with more punishing mechanics.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I think you don't know how to read the data from gw2efficiency.

Then show me where I misread the data. GW2efficiency is mostly used by hardcoreplayers, so it's stats are ofc not representative for the whole GW2 community. Most players probably don't even know what an API key is. But for the more "engaged in the game" players it gives probably an okayish impression.

* 35% of all players got one LI or more. 20% already got 13 LI.

* 75% have reached fractal level 10, so did at least 9 successful runs. The top 35%, as comparision to raids, have reached level 63. Top 20% are at level 100.

* 75% got ~500 dungeon token; 35% ~2000; 20% ~3500. Dungeontoken are easier to spend than LI.

 

> Story content is created to be done once. Instanced content needs people to actively play it to be successful and alive. So try again.

You are making up excuses. It's possible to design group content to be done once **or ** more than once. As example: https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zaishen_Mission

As said earlier I don't think it would be super problematic to take Lake dorics living story caudecus mansion part, tweak the enemies a bit and add the whole thing as a new dungeon. The current version could still stay as "solomode" and an updated version could be implemented into a "dungeon 2.0" concept. Or fractal 2.0. Just something with a new reward structure and a bit different content design. For examples fractals as 15 min content on the more challenging side, these on the more casual side with less difficult boss fights, more trashmobs, 30 min content. As example.

 

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> Dungeons was not popular only specific ppl did them and if you were a ranger or necro or enginer you could forget to ever do them since those 3 was not allowed by most ppl in dungeons.

There were plenty of listings which were "P1" etc. If a group is looking for a PS warrior/meta comp/... a nec gets kicked, it helps to read the lfg.

Most groups prefered a necro or engineer over a fullsignet staffguard or bearbow who shot enemies out of the stack in every fight and usually also didn't got kicked.

 

 

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"Jockum.1385" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > Listings aren't pointless if you compare the activity of players. Dungeon lfgs aren't filling in seconds, same stands for low level fractals. On the other side you have a very active T4 lfg and the same for raids.

> You are refering to dungeons in 2018. Maddoc was refering to pre HoT. Back in the days dungeons filled quickly.

> If you want to go by listings you need to count all listings which pop up in a defined time (lets say 30 mins). For dungeons you'd also need to sum up all different dungeons lfgs. You can't simply compare a single dungeon to all raids.

> If you just open up the lfg and count lfgs you obviously get nonsense results bc you get those 5 cm groups which are searching since 30 mins for a druid ruin the results. Ofc you need to compare the same day at the same time. You also need to consider resets. Its pointless to compare fractals around reset when there is increased activity.

>

> While gold was indeed a motivation for many players: this is true for all content. Raids without any rewards would be dead content, too. Open world content without good rewards is usually also pretty dead.

>

> > And it was only the dungeon running community that asked for more team content. [...]The "casual" group was never that organized that vocal and that creative when it came to group content for them.

> No, not only the dungeon community asked for more team content. You find these debates since release in more or less all guild wars forums in varying forms. Not only by dungeonrunners. Many players struggled with difficulty of dungeons and asked for easier teamcontent. People ask(ed) for guildcontent, sometimes spezified as instanced - not only content for big guilds. Or see those people asking for wintersday content to be premade-team again (tixxx?). You can also see that some people care about teamcontent when they are asking for advice on guildactivities. Or players which have asked to bring back a trinity to GW2, which wanted to run healers in instanced content. Or those zerk-meta threads. Most of them were not part of the dungeon community, but were interested in instanced team content.

>

> I ran low level fractals with my guild when they were new. They were easier than dungeons for us. Anet later (2013) added more difficult fractals with more punishing mechanics.

>

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > I think you don't know how to read the data from gw2efficiency.

> Then show me where I misread the data. GW2efficiency is mostly used by hardcoreplayers, so it's stats are ofc not representative for the whole GW2 community. Most players probably don't even know what an API key is. But for the more "engaged in the game" players it gives probably an okayish impression.

> * 35% of all players got one LI or more. 20% already got 13 LI.

> * 75% have reached fractal level 10, so did at least 9 successful runs. The top 35%, as comparision to raids, have reached level 63. Top 20% are at level 100.

> * 75% got ~500 dungeon token; 35% ~2000; 20% ~3500. Dungeontoken are easier to spend than LI.

>

> > Story content is created to be done once. Instanced content needs people to actively play it to be successful and alive. So try again.

> You are making up excuses. It's possible to design group content to be done once **or ** more than once. As example: https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zaishen_Mission

> As said earlier I don't think it would be super problematic to take Lake dorics living story caudecus mansion part, tweak the enemies a bit and add the whole thing as a new dungeon. The current version could still stay as "solomode" and an updated version could be implemented into a "dungeon 2.0" concept. Or fractal 2.0. Just something with a new reward structure and a bit different content design. For examples fractals as 15 min content on the more challenging side, these on the more casual side with less difficult boss fights, more trashmobs, 30 min content. As example.

>

> > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > Dungeons was not popular only specific ppl did them and if you were a ranger or necro or enginer you could forget to ever do them since those 3 was not allowed by most ppl in dungeons.

> There were plenty of listings which were "P1" etc. If a group is looking for a PS warrior/meta comp/... a nec gets kicked, it helps to read the lfg.

> Most groups prefered a necro or engineer over a fullsignet staffguard or bearbow who shot enemies out of the stack in every fight and usually also didn't got kicked.

>

>

 

I rember those times i got insta kicked for being a ranger on any dungeon for back then necro and ranger and engi was considered weak

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Jockum.1385" said:

> Then show me where I misread the data. GW2efficiency is mostly used by hardcoreplayers, so it's stats are ofc not representative for the whole GW2 community. Most players probably don't even know what an API key is. But for the more "engaged in the game" players it gives probably an okayish impression.

> * 35% of all players got one LI or more. 20% already got 13 LI.

> * 75% have reached fractal level 10, so did at least 9 successful runs. The top 35%, as comparision to raids, have reached level 63. Top 20% are at level 100.

So you do have no idea how to read gw2efficiency data...

 

Fractal level 10 is "required" to make legendary precursors and the legendary backpack. Fractals have been around the game for much longer than Raids. That data doesn't show anything about how many times those players replayed the content. The listings do tell us that.

Furthermore, to show you how the statistics you use is worthless, and talking about popularity, 32.544% STARTED A Star to Guide Us 35.5% of players have LI. See Raids are more popular than starting the latest episode. 27.109% finished A Star to Guide Us, 27% of players have 3 LI...

Yes the data you took are practically worthless.

 

> * 75% got ~500 dungeon token; 35% ~2000; 20% ~3500. Dungeontoken are easier to spend than LI.

Two words: reward tracks.

 

> You are making up excuses. It's possible to design group content to be done once **or ** more than once.

You were talking about story not group content. I responded to that.

 

This part:

> Especially story content gets barely done more than once.

 

> There were plenty of listings which were "P1" etc.

No there weren't. You are remembering the time when only CoF P1 was being run 100 times per day. That was fixed quickly.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"Jockum.1385" said:

> > @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> > Listings aren't pointless if you compare the activity of players. Dungeon lfgs aren't filling in seconds, same stands for low level fractals. On the other side you have a very active T4 lfg and the same for raids.

> You are refering to dungeons in 2018. Maddoc was refering to pre HoT. Back in the days dungeons filled quickly.

> If you want to go by listings you need to count all listings which pop up in a defined time (lets say 30 mins). For dungeons you'd also need to sum up all different dungeons lfgs. You can't simply compare a single dungeon to all raids.

> If you just open up the lfg and count lfgs you obviously get nonsense results bc you get those 5 cm groups which are searching since 30 mins for a druid ruin the results. Ofc you need to compare the same day at the same time. You also need to consider resets. Its pointless to compare fractals around reset when there is increased activity.

>

> While gold was indeed a motivation for many players: this is true for all content. Raids without any rewards would be dead content, too. Open world content without good rewards is usually also pretty dead.

>

> > And it was only the dungeon running community that asked for more team content. [...]The "casual" group was never that organized that vocal and that creative when it came to group content for them.

> No, not only the dungeon community asked for more team content. You find these debates since release in more or less all guild wars forums in varying forms. Not only by dungeonrunners. Many players struggled with difficulty of dungeons and asked for easier teamcontent. People ask(ed) for guildcontent, sometimes spezified as instanced - not only content for big guilds. Or see those people asking for wintersday content to be premade-team again (tixxx?). You can also see that some people care about teamcontent when they are asking for advice on guildactivities. Or players which have asked to bring back a trinity to GW2, which wanted to run healers in instanced content. Or those zerk-meta threads. Most of them were not part of the dungeon community, but were interested in instanced team content.

>

> I ran low level fractals with my guild when they were new. They were easier than dungeons for us. Anet later (2013) added more difficult fractals with more punishing mechanics.

>

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > I think you don't know how to read the data from gw2efficiency.

> Then show me where I misread the data. GW2efficiency is mostly used by hardcoreplayers, so it's stats are ofc not representative for the whole GW2 community. Most players probably don't even know what an API key is. But for the more "engaged in the game" players it gives probably an okayish impression.

> * 35% of all players got one LI or more. 20% already got 13 LI.

> * 75% have reached fractal level 10, so did at least 9 successful runs. The top 35%, as comparision to raids, have reached level 63. Top 20% are at level 100.

> * 75% got ~500 dungeon token; 35% ~2000; 20% ~3500. Dungeontoken are easier to spend than LI.

>

> > Story content is created to be done once. Instanced content needs people to actively play it to be successful and alive. So try again.

> You are making up excuses. It's possible to design group content to be done once **or ** more than once. As example: https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zaishen_Mission

> As said earlier I don't think it would be super problematic to take Lake dorics living story caudecus mansion part, tweak the enemies a bit and add the whole thing as a new dungeon. The current version could still stay as "solomode" and an updated version could be implemented into a "dungeon 2.0" concept. Or fractal 2.0. Just something with a new reward structure and a bit different content design. For examples fractals as 15 min content on the more challenging side, these on the more casual side with less difficult boss fights, more trashmobs, 30 min content. As example.

>

> > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > Dungeons was not popular only specific ppl did them and if you were a ranger or necro or enginer you could forget to ever do them since those 3 was not allowed by most ppl in dungeons.

> There were plenty of listings which were "P1" etc. If a group is looking for a PS warrior/meta comp/... a nec gets kicked, it helps to read the lfg.

> Most groups prefered a necro or engineer over a fullsignet staffguard or bearbow who shot enemies out of the stack in every fight and usually also didn't got kicked.

>

>

 

Dungeons wasnt played by majority the casual player didnt play it i was at that time on once a weekend per month. Also this post is about raids not about dungeons you seem to not like this game since you keep people out of it. So why bother you can play something else

[yann.1946]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Jockum.1385" said:

> > Then show me where I misread the data. GW2efficiency is mostly used by hardcoreplayers, so it's stats are ofc not representative for the whole GW2 community. Most players probably don't even know what an API key is. But for the more "engaged in the game" players it gives probably an okayish impression.

> > * 35% of all players got one LI or more. 20% already got 13 LI.

> > * 75% have reached fractal level 10, so did at least 9 successful runs. The top 35%, as comparision to raids, have reached level 63. Top 20% are at level 100.

> So you do have no idea how to read gw2efficiency data...

>

> Fractal level 10 is "required" to make legendary precursors and the legendary backpack. Fractals have been around the game for much longer than Raids. That data doesn't show anything about how many times those players replayed the content. The listings do tell us that.

> Furthermore, to show you how the statistics you use is worthless, and talking about popularity, 32.544% STARTED A Star to Guide Us 35.5% of players have LI. See Raids are more popular than starting the latest episode. 27.109% finished A Star to Guide Us, 27% of players have 3 LI...

> Yes the data you took are practically worthless.

>

> > * 75% got ~500 dungeon token; 35% ~2000; 20% ~3500. Dungeontoken are easier to spend than LI.

> Two words: reward tracks.

>

> > You are making up excuses. It's possible to design group content to be done once **or ** more than once.

> You were talking about story not group content. I responded to that.

>

> This part:

> > Especially story content gets barely done more than once.

>

> > There were plenty of listings which were "P1" etc.

> No there weren't. You are remembering the time when only CoF P1 was being run 100 times per day. That was fixed quickly.

 

While I agree in general the listing at a specific point in time isn't that great a parameter. Its probably nessecary to check all listing that where made in a day.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> While I agree in general the listing at a specific point in time isn't that great a parameter. Its probably nessecary to check all listing that where made in a day.

 

Well any time I've looked at the LFG, there are more T4/CM listings than T1/2/3 listings. And of course way more Raid listings than T1/2/3 listings. Maybe it's the time I'm looking, or maybe it's an EU thing and in NA is different. I honestly don't care. It's better that way than comparing the fractal level with the amount of LI.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > While I agree in general the listing at a specific point in time isn't that great a parameter. Its probably nessecary to check all listing that where made in a day.

>

> Well any time I've looked at the LFG, there are more T4/CM listings than T1/2/3 listings. And of course way more Raid listings than T1/2/3 listings. Maybe it's the time I'm looking, or maybe it's an EU thing and in NA is different.

No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_.

 

For example, in the dungeon glory days at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

 

That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

 

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> I rember those times i got insta kicked for being a ranger on any dungeon for back then necro and ranger and engi was considered weak

While i could find a group within minutes running a bearbow. It's just i wasn't joining any speedrunning groups, but tried to make my own.

 

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_. At one time at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

>

> That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

>

 

Actually this isn't true. The low level listings stay for a rather long time too, they certainly don't fill up "instantly" at all. I didn't look once, I opened the LFG and monitored it for a while so as to avoid the "instant filling" listings. I got exactly what is happening. That there are many casual listings but they fill instantly is what has little to no basis here.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_. At one time at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

> >

> > That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

> >

>

> Actually this isn't true. The low level listings stay for a rather long time too, they certainly don't fill up "instantly" at all. I didn't look once, I opened the LFG and monitored it for a while so as to avoid the "instant filling" listings. I got exactly what is happening. That there are many casual listings but they fill instantly is what has little to no basis here.

I haven't actually checked it for fractals nowadays. I just brought up my personal experience from few years ago, and used it to give a counterexample to your methodology.

 

Perhaps in this case you're right, although i haven't had any trouble filling my low tier groups in no more than a minute or so when i was helping a friend through the tiers recently, while most raid lfgs not on reset day do seem to fill rather slowly (although you have definitely a point in that t4s weren't any slower than t1-t3). Perhaps i'm just playing in a different time zone, or, more likely, considering you're EU too, play at different hours.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_. At one time at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

> > >

> > > That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

> > >

> >

> > Actually this isn't true. The low level listings stay for a rather long time too, they certainly don't fill up "instantly" at all. I didn't look once, I opened the LFG and monitored it for a while so as to avoid the "instant filling" listings. I got exactly what is happening. That there are many casual listings but they fill instantly is what has little to no basis here.

> I haven't actually checked it for fractals nowadays. I just brought up my personal experience from few years ago, and used it to give a counterexample to your methodology.

>

> Perhaps in this case you're right (although i haven't had any trouble filling my low tier groups in no more than a minute or so when i was helping a friend through the tiers recently, while most raid lfgs not on reset day do seem to fill rather slowly). Perhaps i'm just playing in a different time zone, or, more likely, considering you're EU too, play at different hours).

>

>

 

I'm not gonna stay with the LFG open for 24/7 hours to see exactly how many listings happen, but if anyone wants to try that they are free to do so. There are so many variables in it too, one day might not be enough, or even 1 week. Maybe one day they will expose LFG listings on the API and we'll get to see exactly what is happening.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > While I agree in general the listing at a specific point in time isn't that great a parameter. Its probably nessecary to check all listing that where made in a day.

> >

> > Well any time I've looked at the LFG, there are more T4/CM listings than T1/2/3 listings. And of course way more Raid listings than T1/2/3 listings. Maybe it's the time I'm looking, or maybe it's an EU thing and in NA is different.

> No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_.

>

> For example, in the dungeon glory days at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

>

> That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

>

> > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > I rember those times i got insta kicked for being a ranger on any dungeon for back then necro and ranger and engi was considered weak

> While i could find a group within minutes running a bearbow. It's just i wasn't joining any speedrunning groups, but tried to make my own.

>

>

>

 

Tried that got kicked from my own group then it got full funny my ranger did not have a bear

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > While I agree in general the listing at a specific point in time isn't that great a parameter. Its probably nessecary to check all listing that where made in a day.

> > >

> > > Well any time I've looked at the LFG, there are more T4/CM listings than T1/2/3 listings. And of course way more Raid listings than T1/2/3 listings. Maybe it's the time I'm looking, or maybe it's an EU thing and in NA is different.

> > No. It's simply because _raid listings take the longest time to fill_.

> >

> > For example, in the dungeon glory days at any single moment you were seeing far more dungeon high requirement LFGs than casual ones, but that was only because casual ones were filling almost instantly, while high req ones took a lot of time to fill. If you just looked at LFG once, you would've thought that casual runs were almost non-existent, when in reality it was exactly the opposite.

> >

> > That's why you have to do what Yann suggested: observe LFG for a long time and note how many new entries show up. If you just look at them once, you will get a skewed result that may possibly show something opposite of what is really happening.

> >

> > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > > I rember those times i got insta kicked for being a ranger on any dungeon for back then necro and ranger and engi was considered weak

> > While i could find a group within minutes running a bearbow. It's just i wasn't joining any speedrunning groups, but tried to make my own.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Tried that got kicked from my own group then it got full funny my ranger did not have a bear

Almost noone kicked group founder then. It collapsed the group and kicked everyone out of instance. Perhaps you got kicked for other reasons than just using ranger?

 

[Tasty Pudding.3764]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > They invest in raids to keep hardcore players playing regularly and spending money regularly. Thats literally the only purpose of raids. Without raids, most of those players would leave the game out of boredom and stop spending.

> >

> > Hardcore PVE players don't spend on anything other than expansions. If you are not swimming in gold to be able to do as much gold->gems as you want, you are not a hardcore PVE player.

>

> **[CITATION NEEDED]**

 

Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

[rabenpriester.7129]

> @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

 

Why buy gems if you can just sell Dhuum and trade gold -> gems? It's also good for the whales and people who want to spend money on this game, because their gems are worth more gold. It's also good for anet and the economy of this game, because of the hidden tax in gold <=> gems conversion.

 

The more hardcore PvE players I know buy gems for real money if a patch hits they really like for its balancing and QoL updates. Not because they need to (they could easily convert), but because they want to give anet money for their good work.

 

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > They invest in raids to keep hardcore players playing regularly and spending money regularly. Thats literally the only purpose of raids. Without raids, most of those players would leave the game out of boredom and stop spending.

> > >

> > > Hardcore PVE players don't spend on anything other than expansions. If you are not swimming in gold to be able to do as much gold->gems as you want, you are not a hardcore PVE player.

> >

> > **[CITATION NEEDED]**

>

> Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

 

Me. WoodenPotatoes, who has both admitted to being a whale as well his belief that raids saved Heart of Thorns from killing GW2 completely. Easy.

[Tasty Pudding.3764]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> Me. WoodenPotatoes, who has both admitted to being a whale as well his belief that raids saved Heart of Thorns from killing GW2 completely. Easy.

 

OK, well done.

[irrimn.3192]

> @"Kiza.5630" said:

> > @"irrimn.3192" said:

>

> > Well, first and foremost, difficulty. If there are challenge difficulties for raids, why not have a newbie-mode? [...] Ideally, newbie mode would still teach the mechanics of the fight without being too punishing.

>

> I've seen that in other games though. The outcome was (and will probably always be): ppl don't learn the fight, because you can just ignore the mechanics and mow the bosses down. And then they will just farm this dumbed down version without thinking.

>

> Take a look at the open world bosses. When was the last time a group doing them actually paid attention to mechanics? Example would be bounties with phases shifted. Almost 75% of the ppl stack at the boss and just keep hitting until its dead. Or Serpents' Ire. It has but one single mechanic, yet it still fails miserably.

>

> I fear you can't teach players with simple versions of fights. Just find a good middle ground and throw everyone in. Some learn, some don't.

 

I think a lot of that has to do with balance and I admit it wouldn't be that easy to get right at first. Of course, it really depends on which mechanics are dumbed down or removed. For instance, if you took a raid with a kill timer and just extended that timer by 5 minutes, it could be an 'easy mode' - you would still have to do all the other mechanics correctly (or die) but you would have more time to learn and DPS wouldn't be such a big deal. Or, on the other hand, simply remove the kill timer and keep all the other mechanics as is and then pretty much anyone could do it as long as they know how to stay alive (which probably wouldn't be as good). But that would also be an acceptable (and really easy) way to make an "easy mode".

 

Of course, damage and HP values could also be tweaked but if those are made too easy then as you say, the content might be able to just be steamrolled, especially if there are any 'pros' also in the group.

 

As for farming the rewards (and not progressing to normal and challenge modes), the rewards could be changed to scale with the difficulty. So, you get 1 item X for easymode, 2 item X from regular, and 3 item X from hardmode. Completing a higher difficulty would also count as a completion of the lower difficulties. This means people that only farmed easymode would take three times as long to get the same rewards as people playing normal, and people playing normal would take twice as long as people playing hardmode. This would encourage people to learn the fights better and move up in modes.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > They invest in raids to keep hardcore players playing regularly and spending money regularly. Thats literally the only purpose of raids. Without raids, most of those players would leave the game out of boredom and stop spending.

> > >

> > > Hardcore PVE players don't spend on anything other than expansions. If you are not swimming in gold to be able to do as much gold->gems as you want, you are not a hardcore PVE player.

> >

> > **[CITATION NEEDED]**

>

> Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

 

I've likely spent more money on this game this last year than you will in the entire time you have and will be playing it.

 

Almost every one in my old raid static spent around 75-100 black lion keys on a new BLC patch. None of them were casual.

 

Again, your presumption that players who are less invested into a game will be spending more, even with a system like the gem exchange, is flawed.

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"irrimn.3192" said:

> I think a lot of that has to do with balance and I admit it wouldn't be that easy to get right at first. Of course, it really depends on which mechanics are dumbed down or removed. For instance, if you took a raid with a kill timer and just extended that timer by 5 minutes, it could be an 'easy mode' - you would still have to do all the other mechanics correctly (or die) but you would have more time to learn and DPS wouldn't be such a big deal. Or, on the other hand, simply remove the kill timer and keep all the other mechanics as is and then pretty much anyone could do it as long as they know how to stay alive (which probably wouldn't be as good). But that would also be an acceptable (and really easy) way to make an "easy mode".

>

> Of course, damage and HP values could also be tweaked but if those are made too easy then as you say, the content might be able to just be steamrolled, especially if there are any 'pros' also in the group.

>

> As for farming the rewards (and not progressing to normal and challenge modes), the rewards could be changed to scale with the difficulty. So, you get 1 item X for easymode, 2 item X from regular, and 3 item X from hardmode. Completing a higher difficulty would also count as a completion of the lower difficulties. This means people that only farmed easymode would take three times as long to get the same rewards as people playing normal, and people playing normal would take twice as long as people playing hardmode. This would encourage people to learn the fights better and move up in modes.

 

First, they aren't even able to balance their classes properly and hand out enough alternatives to keep the fun in instanced content which is released way too

infrequently.

Secondly, the example with the time won't work. Squads barely wipe due to the timer when they start raiding and also don't when they are experienced. Almost all groups fail at playing the mechanics and it is not because they are wearing glass cannon builds. Trust me, I've seen enough "tanky" builds/players failing heavily over the past years. We also have a good reminder with dungeons where you don't have any timer at all and people still died (and even die nowadays with power creep from HoT & PoF) miserably.

Since there are bosses you are able to kill with around 4-5 minutes time left on the timer while not performing on snow crow level (a speed run guild tyi) says all about the heavy raid difficulty. So, no, timers are not the main issue for players they never were. Of course there are bosses with tighter timers but those are not the ones you want to start with and additionally those timers are only tight if you play certain tactics.

Your 2nd approach is the most dangerous one because you cannot simply balance rewards to one third or one half. Once you balance in favor of the easy mode people would farm this variant and even run bosses twice or three times than dealing with the normal mode. If an easy mode has no real rewards the tears would be even bigger as we can read almost every day in this subforum when the idea of easy mode raids is made because most players just want the loot they are not interested in the content at first.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> Secondly, the example with the time won't work. Squads barely wipe due to the timer when they start raiding and also don't when they are experienced.

True for latter, but not necessarily so for former. I have been in quite a lot of "training" squads that managed to get to enrage timers (and then wipe, due to it) on several bosses (and not once or twice, but repeatedly). The usual culprits would be VG, Samarog, Sabetha and lately, and for a little more experienced groups, largos twins (especially on twins time running out is quite common). Additional problems caused by lower dps happen on Gorse (having to do updrafts increases learning difficulty by hundredfold), Sabetha (floor damage) and KC, but those aren't about enrage timers, so they are a separate matter.

 

> @"Vinceman.4572" said:

> Once you balance in favor of the easy mode people would farm this variant and even run bosses twice or three times than dealing with the normal mode.

Those that would struggle with normal? Yeah. Your average raider? Not so much - not on most bosses anyway. Once you feel comfortable enough on normal mode, why would you run easy one and willingly lower your rewards?

It's like with t1-t4. Everyone that can do the higher tiers, does so. Only those that cannot move up stay in lower tiers.

 

> If an easy mode has no real rewards the tears would be even bigger as we can read almost every day in this subforum when the idea of easy mode raids is made because most players just want the loot they are not interested in the content at first.

Yep, rewards are important. As important for easy mode as they are for normal (or potential hard). If current raids were not rewarding enough, they'd be a dead content as well.

 

[hellsqueen.3045]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > > They invest in raids to keep hardcore players playing regularly and spending money regularly. Thats literally the only purpose of raids. Without raids, most of those players would leave the game out of boredom and stop spending.

> > > >

> > > > Hardcore PVE players don't spend on anything other than expansions. If you are not swimming in gold to be able to do as much gold->gems as you want, you are not a hardcore PVE player.

> > >

> > > **[CITATION NEEDED]**

> >

> > Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

>

> I've likely spent more money on this game this last year than you will in the entire time you have and will be playing it.

>

> Almost every one in my old raid static spent around 75-100 black lion keys on a new BLC patch. None of them were casual.

>

> Again, your presumption that players who are less invested into a game will be spending more, even with a system like the gem exchange, is flawed.

 

People who have less time to play, often are working individuals who have money to splurge to sometimes take shortcuts.

Those people who do not have time to play and grind as hard as others often resort to spending their real money on that which they are passionate about.

As someone who has time, I grind out gold for gems and as awful as it is, I still do it because I don't have the money to splurge otherwise.

You can see it in any game that has loot boxes. A person who enjoys the game casually because they have a busy life, will spend money because they want something that they don't have the time to spend grinding.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"hellsqueen.3045" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

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

> > > > > @"Tasty Pudding.3764" said:

> > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > > > > > They invest in raids to keep hardcore players playing regularly and spending money regularly. Thats literally the only purpose of raids. Without raids, most of those players would leave the game out of boredom and stop spending.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hardcore PVE players don't spend on anything other than expansions. If you are not swimming in gold to be able to do as much gold->gems as you want, you are not a hardcore PVE player.

> > > >

> > > > **[CITATION NEEDED]**

> > >

> > > Instead of me trying to do the near impossible task of proving a negative, I offer you the chance to summarily prove me false. Show me 2 players (1 might be a fluke) who claim to be hardcore players (the type who would leave the game without raids) and who also purchase gems for real money on a regular basis. If you can do that, I will retract my claim.

> >

> > I've likely spent more money on this game this last year than you will in the entire time you have and will be playing it.

> >

> > Almost every one in my old raid static spent around 75-100 black lion keys on a new BLC patch. None of them were casual.

> >

> > Again, your presumption that players who are less invested into a game will be spending more, even with a system like the gem exchange, is flawed.

>

> People who have less time to play, often are working individuals who have money to splurge to sometimes take shortcuts.

> Those people who do not have time to play and grind as hard as others often resort to spending their real money on that which they are passionate about.

> As someone who has time, I grind out gold for gems and as awful as it is, I still do it because I don't have the money to splurge otherwise.

> You can see it in any game that has loot boxes. A person who enjoys the game casually because they have a busy life, will spend money because they want something that they don't have the time to spend grinding.

 

There is people spending money in all areas of the game.

 

While people who are more casual might spend money on the game (especially new players who feel they have to catch up), to assume that players who are most invested will spend none is plain incorrect.

 

Again, even the players who grind out gold and convert that gold to gems benefit Arenanet. It drives the gem-gold value up and entices people to buy gems to convert to gold (or spend on gem store items).