An Argument for the Return of Hard Mode

[FrigginPaco.4178]

Mostly due to the usage of the Megaserver technology that enables maps to be populated a good deal of the time and alleviate the fears of fracturing the community's population distribution further, I'd like to discuss the idea of adding Hard Mode to open world as a returning feature from GW1.

 

Using the lines from GW1 Wiki:

 

"Hard mode is a more challenging version of Guild Wars that is unlocked for an account when any character completes a campaign. Any level 20 character [GW1 max level] on that account **_can choose_** to take on **greater numbers of tougher foes in exchange for increased rewards, more valuable drops, and the opportunity to acquire additional titles**. "

 

Among the changes to the game in HM, these are some of the more pertinent ones for us. Keep in mind, these are GW1 values, so try to translate some of the ideas into GW2 format.

 

"Foes in hard mode are stronger than their normal mode counterparts:

Are at higher levels. **

Every level gained translates to 20 more health and roughly 5% more skill damage (see damage calculation). **

They do not gain an armor rating bonus for their increased level: **

...

Have 20 more maximum health for every level above 20, in addition to the health bonus mentioned above.

~~Have higher attributes.~~

Move and attack 33-50% faster. **

Have reduced activation times for skills that normally take 2 seconds or longer to activate. **

Non-boss foes get an elite skill and may have additional non-elite skills. **

Foes in hard mode use a superior AI:

Respond more quickly to area damage over time. **

Are more likely to fight for longer periods of time. **

Are less likely to ball around a single target if more targets are available. **

Are more likely to kite for long periods of time. ** "

 

Among other things.

 

I could see this adding a lot of replay value to the game on many fronts.

 

1. The challenge. In both Open World and Story Missions many players who have stuck around from the beginning, or who are simply good at these sorts of games, can mow down hoards of enemies and get through a large portion of non-group content with relative ease. Sometimes, even small to mid-sized group content, or solo champions depending on the event.

2. The Rewards. This could see many different ways to reward players. Unique armor/ weapon skins, titles, more AP from specific achieves, the return of Title tracks and/or faction points, the first earnable mount skins etc.

3. Encouraging group play. So much of the game can be run alone, and it's probably not a bad idea to get people's feet wet. They don't need to rely on people to get things done. However, there comes a point where an incentive comes along and requires a bit more coordination or just plain party grouping. I've not come across a part of open world where I've had to say to myself "Hang on, need to buddy up for this one." This provides a venue to truly encourage cooperation.

4. Encourage Tankier/Supportive builds. This also may mean a revision of what aggro means in GW2, even if just for this game mode, but I feel like it could really do wonders for group composition and make people feel like they have a place no matter what build they decide to bring.

5. Another goal. Frankly, I feel like a lot of long term players are struggling with GW2's release cadence and this could really help reinvigorate interest. Not only that, but breath new life into earlier zones and other forms of content that has largely been ignored.

 

Please keep in mind, just like GW1, it was a completely optional system. I didn't use it until about a year and a half after I beat each campaign back in GW1. I just hope there's some interest in something like this. Playing through each game mode can be nice, but I'm currently at a loss for what to do and just thinking about this has me in a creative mindset. More than anything, just because it's on a forum post doesn't mean Anet will make it happen.

[Krzysztof.5973]

There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

[Randulf.7614]

As pointed out many times, hard mode just couldn’t work here in open world. The games event structure could not support splitting up the population to this extent, especially given the complaints about low map populations already. Difficulty also varies too much already within open world that scaling to a hard mode would be difficult to pull off satisfactory.

 

Hard mode would potentially work in instances like story and dungeons, but use of challenge motes is a better system for gw2 to achieve that goal.

 

Hard mode was a mode that worked for gw1 (sort of anyway - it wasn’t implemented well). It couldn’t work in gw2 open world as the structure is too different

[zealex.9410]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> As pointed out many times, hard mode just couldn’t work here in open world. The games event structure could not support splitting up the population to this extent, especially given the complaints about low map populations already. Difficulty also varies too much already within open world that scaling to a hard mode would be difficult to pull off satisfactory.

>

> Hard mode would potentially work in instances like story and dungeons, but use of challenge motes is a better system for gw2 to achieve that goal.

>

> Hard mode was a mode that worked for gw1 (sort of anyway - it wasn’t implemented well). It couldn’t work in gw2 open world as the structure is too different

 

It could work on world bosses and propably metas and with some relatively smart ideas the existing metas and maps dont need to die for it to happen.

[Cronospere.8143]

> @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

 

I don't Agree.. hard mode in this case, introduces a complete new experience for all content they already delivered. And it can be done fairly easily (unless they have a strange code structure). If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend. (lot of people are bored or dont do stuff). Playing players deliver money. Not all of them, but a certain % will invest in things they see in BL-store or or ingame.

 

I think Hard mode is a good idea. It encourages to play missions together with friends and other players. If you make it hard enough. At the same time, it shouldnt be to hard so that people need to use meta builds..

[Krzysztof.5973]

> @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> > There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

>

> I don't Agree.. hard mode in this case, introduces a complete new experience for all content they already delivered. And it can be done fairly easily (unless they have a strange code structure). If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend. (lot of people are bored or dont do stuff). Playing players deliver money. Not all of them, but a certain % will invest in things they see in BL-store or or ingame.

>

> I think Hard mode is a good idea. It encourages to play missions together with friends and other players. If you make it hard enough. At the same time, it shouldnt be to hard so that people need to use meta builds..

 

Where are the CMs then? They stopped adding them. And what about CMs in wing 6? What happened to "challenge" in "challenge mode"? I do agree that it would be great to see some hard modes in any shape of or form. We simply will not.

[Dante.1508]

I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> > There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

>

> If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend.

The problem with today's players is that too many of them are motivated by rewards first, fun/challenge/whatever game experience second.

 

To make a hardmode open world map work, it needs a good many people playing on it, since the GW2 approach to open world maps doesn't work if there is only one or a small party of players on the map. This means you have to put in rewards a lot greater than the current brain-afk open world/world boss/meta event farms. That in turn leaves those players who do not have the skill/playtime/social network to regularly play harmode maps economically in the dust (something this game so far tries to avoid pretty successfully). Alternatively make the rewards for hardmode comparable with the existing game, and you have a good chance of those maps quickly turning into ghost towns because a sizeable part of the community decides it's "not worth it".

 

Personally I do enjoy challenges in gaming, in this game as well as others, but splitting the playerbase (both physically by putting them on different instances of the same map as well as economically by making these instances noticably different in rewards) doesn't look like a healthy way to do it to me.

 

[Menadena.7482]

> @"FrigginPaco.4178" said:

> Mostly due to the usage of the Megaserver technology that enables maps to be populated a good deal of the time and alleviate the fears of fracturing the community's population distribution further, I'd like to discuss the idea of adding Hard Mode to open world as a returning feature from GW1.

>

> Using the lines from GW1 Wiki:

>

> "Hard mode is a more challenging version of Guild Wars that is unlocked for an account when any character completes a campaign. Any level 20 character [GW1 max level] on that account **_can choose_** to take on **greater numbers of tougher foes in exchange for increased rewards, more valuable drops, and the opportunity to acquire additional titles**. "

>

> Among the changes to the game in HM, these are some of the more pertinent ones for us. Keep in mind, these are GW1 values, so try to translate some of the ideas into GW2 format.

>

> "Foes in hard mode are stronger than their normal mode counterparts:

> Are at higher levels. **

> Every level gained translates to 20 more health and roughly 5% more skill damage (see damage calculation). **

> They do not gain an armor rating bonus for their increased level: **

> ...

> Have 20 more maximum health for every level above 20, in addition to the health bonus mentioned above.

> ~~Have higher attributes.~~

> Move and attack 33-50% faster. **

> Have reduced activation times for skills that normally take 2 seconds or longer to activate. **

> Non-boss foes get an elite skill and may have additional non-elite skills. **

> Foes in hard mode use a superior AI:

> Respond more quickly to area damage over time. **

> Are more likely to fight for longer periods of time. **

> Are less likely to ball around a single target if more targets are available. **

> Are more likely to kite for long periods of time. ** "

>

> Among other things.

>

> I could see this adding a lot of replay value to the game on many fronts.

>

> 1. The challenge. In both Open World and Story Missions many players who have stuck around from the beginning, or who are simply good at these sorts of games, can mow down hoards of enemies and get through a large portion of non-group content with relative ease. Sometimes, even small to mid-sized group content, or solo champions depending on the event.

> 2. The Rewards. This could see many different ways to reward players. Unique armor/ weapon skins, titles, more AP from specific achieves, the return of Title tracks and/or faction points, the first earnable mount skins etc.

> 3. Encouraging group play. So much of the game can be run alone, and it's probably not a bad idea to get people's feet wet. They don't need to rely on people to get things done. However, there comes a point where an incentive comes along and requires a bit more coordination or just plain party grouping. I've not come across a part of open world where I've had to say to myself "Hang on, need to buddy up for this one." This provides a venue to truly encourage cooperation.

> 4. Encourage Tankier/Supportive builds. This also may mean a revision of what aggro means in GW2, even if just for this game mode, but I feel like it could really do wonders for group composition and make people feel like they have a place no matter what build they decide to bring.

> 5. Another goal. Frankly, I feel like a lot of long term players are struggling with GW2's release cadence and this could really help reinvigorate interest. Not only that, but breath new life into earlier zones and other forms of content that has largely been ignored.

>

> Please keep in mind, just like GW1, it was a completely optional system. I didn't use it until about a year and a half after I beat each campaign back in GW1. I just hope there's some interest in something like this. Playing through each game mode can be nice, but I'm currently at a loss for what to do and just thinking about this has me in a creative mindset. More than anything, just because it's on a forum post doesn't mean Anet will make it happen.

 

Why do people keep asking for this rather than just searching for the existing threads on it?

 

Creating a hard mode is easy for those that want it. If that is your thing just fight a mob in only blues and greens or something. Dev resources are better spent than creating something you can already do.

[Menadena.7482]

> @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> > There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

>

> I don't Agree.. hard mode in this case, introduces a complete new experience for all content they already delivered. And it can be done fairly easily (unless they have a strange code structure). If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend. (lot of people are bored or dont do stuff). Playing players deliver money. Not all of them, but a certain % will invest in things they see in BL-store or or ingame.

>

> I think Hard mode is a good idea. It encourages to play missions together with friends and other players. If you make it hard enough. At the same time, it shouldnt be to hard so that people need to use meta builds..

 

Let me guess, you are not a dev, right?

[Blaeys.3102]

The issue with this approach is that it would split the game population. On some maps, that would make things feel pretty dead. It would be pretty detrimental to the game and make it feel less alive to new players.

 

I do think there is a way they can offer a harder mode experience without doing this - and that is through the guild event flag (the one guilds can use to trigger Teq, TT or KQ out of sequence). Give guilds three versions of this flag offering 3 different versions of every world boss in the game (and maybe even dynamic events). If guilds an get an organized core onto a map before they trigger, they can control the organization of the event - organization that can then be used to tackle harder versions of a boss. Yes - there would still be the likelihood others join the fight, but with the organized core (size controlled by the guild triggering of course), then it should be very doable.

 

The tools are already in the game - and it would be considerably better than splitting players between two separate versions of the game and watering down populations for everyone.

[kharmin.7683]

This is why they instituted raiding. That's the "hard mode" content.

[FrigginPaco.4178]

One of the recurring issues brought up is the belief that it will further fracture PvE. Frankly, I thought that megaservers would solve that. The idea that playerbase fracturing is still on people's minds tells me one of two things:

 

Either people dont have faith in the server structure that we have,

 

Or

 

There are concerns because of how many people would participate in that content (my least likely choice just because of the number of naysayers here for any particular reason)

[FrigginPaco.4178]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> This is why they instituted raiding. That's the "hard mode" content.

 

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> This is why they instituted raiding. That's the "hard mode" content.

 

I dont see a reason for an challenge zone to pop up somewhere. Even if its limited to 1 map post expansion campaign to be unlocked, it could add a small enough, but tangible way forward.

[FrigginPaco.4178]

> @"Dante.1508" said:

> I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

 

That's not my memory of HM but sure, fewer people played hard mode compared to regular.

 

That said, a great deal of the currencies, rewards and more were farmable in _**solo**_ runs in portions of HM. Spirit spam farming ectos in UW are an example here.

 

And frankly, considering how much regular PvE there is and always will be, I dont see the harm to the severity that you and others do.

 

I've supported the game since GW1, wheres my say? Did the money I've spent in Gems not count? Surely as a paying customer i have some input, just as much as anybody else.

 

[Dante.1763]

> @"Dante.1508" said:

> I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

 

I ran hardmode regularly. Solo farming ecto was fun, solo farming greens in HM was even more fun! However, yes it was a minority thing, and the nice thing it was optional unless you farmed titles.

[GW Noob.6038]

If you want the game to be more challenging take off your ascended stuff and only use blue/green equips. Problem solved.

[aspirine.6852]

> @"Dante.1508" said:

> I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

 

Wut? Gw1 hardmode was the most I played since normal was too easy with powercreep. Gw1 vanquish was my favorite pastime. Same for my game mate.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

this would be a horrible idea.

 

Just fix the scaling. Make 'bosses' like Great Jungle Wurm, Shadow Behemoth, Shatterer actually scale well. It is ridiculous how fast and easy they go down.

 

Better scaling would mean even people on a low population map had a chance, while those on a full map still see some challenge.

 

Hard mode would just disrupt the community and make the game die. Fast.

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"FrigginPaco.4178" said:

*snip*

 

The last episode of the personal story gave us a boss without even a breakbar.

It's time to realize that the developers of this game have little interest in holding our engagement with challenging content.

 

Those toxic comments telling you to run content in blue and greens are who the devs are skewing the content for, like it or not.

[Cronospere.8143]

> @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > > @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> > > There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

> >

> > I don't Agree.. hard mode in this case, introduces a complete new experience for all content they already delivered. And it can be done fairly easily (unless they have a strange code structure). If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend. (lot of people are bored or dont do stuff). Playing players deliver money. Not all of them, but a certain % will invest in things they see in BL-store or or ingame.

> >

> > I think Hard mode is a good idea. It encourages to play missions together with friends and other players. If you make it hard enough. At the same time, it shouldnt be to hard so that people need to use meta builds..

>

> Let me guess, you are not a dev, right?

 

So i can't comment on someones opinion?

No i'm not a developer, what point are you trying to make here?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"FrigginPaco.4178" said:

> Please keep in mind, just like GW1, it was a completely optional system.

 

This is where your idea falls apart. There isn't much value added in making it harder AND making it optional. It just means most of the population will ignore it. Frankly, I would complain if Anet wasted their time adding a hard mode to old content that would be optional ... not only do they ignore most of the people that play this game, but it's not actually new content either. So even if a player DOES want harder content, they would have to go through the old story to do it. It's a bit of a 'so what' moment.

 

[Dante.1508]

> @"FrigginPaco.4178" said:

> > @"Dante.1508" said:

> > I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

>

> That's not my memory of HM but sure, fewer people played hard mode compared to regular.

>

> That said, a great deal of the currencies, rewards and more were farmable in _**solo**_ runs in portions of HM. Spirit spam farming ectos in UW are an example here.

>

> And frankly, considering how much regular PvE there is and always will be, I dont see the harm to the severity that you and others do.

>

> I've supported the game since GW1, wheres my say? Did the money I've spent in Gems not count? Surely as a paying customer i have some input, just as much as anybody else.

>

 

The issue isn't hardmode if its done right and only hardmode customers have to use it.. The issue is Anet hides all the best rewards behind hardmode and forces everyone into it to get anything nice to justify their coding teams work.. Then everyone is forced into it like it or not to receive rewards that were in the standard version before this was added..

 

I've seen it happen time and time again.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"FrigginPaco.4178" said:

> > Please keep in mind, just like GW1, it was a completely optional system.

>

> This is where your idea falls apart. There isn't much value added in making it harder AND making it optional. It just means most of the population will ignore it. Frankly, I would complain if Anet wasted their time adding a hard mode to old content that would be optional ... not only do they ignore most of the people that play this game, but it's not actually new content either. So even if a player DOES want harder content, they would have to go through the old story to do it. It's a bit of a 'so what' moment.

>

 

Again if it isn't optional the customers leave, look at HoT.. many customers quitted..

> @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > @"Dante.1508" said:

> > I think its a great idea if you want to lose populations and customers.. Many many players enjoy this game casually.. Hard mode only appeals to minority. Also GW1 hardmode was dead, no one did it..

>

> Wut? Gw1 hardmode was the most I played since normal was too easy with powercreep. Gw1 vanquish was my favorite pastime. Same for my game mate.

 

Population wise no it wasn't popular or it would have been added here already years ago.

[crepuscular.9047]

you gotta remember GW1 was a completely different game, the map instance is to yourself or a group up to 8 players.

structurally it very Diablo with free camera

 

with GW2 if they do it, it will double Anet's operating cost, because now they will need to running 2 versions of every map

 

the problem is the power creep, that's making it easier.

For new players they are still dying a lot in core Tyria.

 

[Menadena.7482]

> @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > > @"Cronospere.8143" said:

> > > > @"Krzysztof.5973" said:

> > > > There is interest in this kind of content. Yes it would be optional. Yes more challenging content (actually challenging, not laughable raids difficulty) would offer better rewards. Problem is, it doesn't sell. They would have to put it in the gemstore in order to make money off of it. Casual grounds are highly profitable.

> > >

> > > I don't Agree.. hard mode in this case, introduces a complete new experience for all content they already delivered. And it can be done fairly easily (unless they have a strange code structure). If they introduce hard mode, people have tons of new hours of playtime, which they normally not spend. (lot of people are bored or dont do stuff). Playing players deliver money. Not all of them, but a certain % will invest in things they see in BL-store or or ingame.

> > >

> > > I think Hard mode is a good idea. It encourages to play missions together with friends and other players. If you make it hard enough. At the same time, it shouldnt be to hard so that people need to use meta builds..

> >

> > Let me guess, you are not a dev, right?

>

> So i can't comment on someones opinion?

> No i'm not a developer, what point are you trying to make here?

 

That non devs often say some change will be easy. Things non-devs think will be easy rarely are and things that actually are easy to implement seem like they are huge projects. Only the people that wrote part of the code have an idea how hard a given change is, and even then rarely can say such off the top of their head.