My opinion about raids - Page 5 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

My opinion about raids

1235789

Comments

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.6921Turin.6921 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Turin.6921Turin.6921 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • STIHL.2489STIHL.2489 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    There are two kinds of Gamers, Salty, and Extra Salty.
    Ego is the Anesthesia that dullens the pain of Stupidity.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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".

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • @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.6921Turin.6921 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 8, 2018

    @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.3062mortrialus.3062 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    The Psychomancer: Mesmer Elite Specialization Suggestion

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    And that’s just the kill, correct?

  • mortrialus.3062mortrialus.3062 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @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.

    And that’s just the kill, correct?

    Who has the achievement.

    The Psychomancer: Mesmer Elite Specialization Suggestion

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

    Differences perhaps come from different APIs entered. I don't think I've updated mine in a while and I can see some things for my account, but not everything.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

    I think the difficulty is important, especially for the Soulless Horror which is a very weird designed boss that gets easier and easier the more you progress. At the end it's really stupidly easy compared to how it starts, which goes backwards to how Raid encounters should be. Maybe someone misunderstood the mechanics or something? But I doubt it was on purpose. Every other Raid boss gets progressively harder except for this one.

    Also, it hasn't been even 1 year since Hall of Chains was released. We don't (?) have similar data from 1 year after the release of Spirit Vale to see how it looked. Of course Spirit Vale being the very first Raid I wouldn't be surprised if the completion rates of it at first were very very low, since it was new. While Hall of Chains was probably run by more experienced Raiders. Note how according to gw2efficiency there is only a tiny 0.4% (or just 867 players) that got directly into Path of Fire, the rest of them also bought Heart of Thorns.

    @Ohoni.6057 said:
    Differences perhaps come from different APIs entered. I don't think I've updated mine in a while and I can see some things for my account, but not everything.

    Yeah that's the most probable answer.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

    I think the difficulty is important, especially for the Soulless Horror which is a very weird designed boss that gets easier and easier the more you progress. At the end it's really stupidly easy compared to how it starts, which goes backwards to how Raid encounters should be. Maybe someone misunderstood the mechanics or something? But I doubt it was on purpose. Every other Raid boss gets progressively harder except for this one.

    Also, it hasn't been even 1 year since Hall of Chains was released. We don't (?) have similar data from 1 year after the release of Spirit Vale to see how it looked. Of course Spirit Vale being the very first Raid I wouldn't be surprised if the completion rates of it at first were very very low, since it was new. While Hall of Chains was probably run by more experienced Raiders. Note how according to gw2efficiency there is only a tiny 0.4% (or just 867 players) that got directly into Path of Fire, the rest of them also bought Heart of Thorns.

    @Ohoni.6057 said:
    Differences perhaps come from different APIs entered. I don't think I've updated mine in a while and I can see some things for my account, but not everything.

    Yeah that's the most probable answer.

    Yeah, I’m not sure what the issue is with wing 5 is, are people just getting bored and disinterested? Guess we’ll see what the stats on wing 6 are like hopefully it’s not a downward trend.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Yeah, I’m not sure what the issue is with wing 5 is, are people just getting bored and disinterested? Guess we’ll see what the stats on wing 6 are like hopefully it’s not a downward trend.

    You can check if there is a downward using other data, you don't have to check Raids specifically.
    For example, Trade Contracts (the most common Path of Fire currency) is at 70% while Kralkatite Ore (Episode 1 currency) is at 45.5%.
    Which shows a downward trend for the game as a whole, it should affect Raids too. I can't seem to find Difluorite Crystals.

    It's similar with LS3 currencies, I have a comparison here between July 2017 and May 2018 (before Orrian Pearls were added):
    60.5% / 63.5%
    54.5% / 58%
    52.5% / 57.5%
    52% / 56.5%
    51.5% / 55%
    0% / 50.5%

    A downward trend in participation of Raids shouldn't be seen outside a downward trend for the game as a whole.

    Edit: important thing to note, Halls of Chains was released together with the Domain of Istan. Global game stats (trade contracts and kralkatite ore) went from 70% to 45.5%, a very high 24.5% reduction between the release of Path of Fire and the introduction of Episode 1. Meaning Hall of Chains had a much reduced playerbase to work with. A reduction that didn't have anything to do with Raids, but with the game as a whole.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Yeah, I’m not sure what the issue is with wing 5 is, are people just getting bored and disinterested? Guess we’ll see what the stats on wing 6 are like hopefully it’s not a downward trend.

    You can check if there is a downward using other data, you don't have to check Raids specifically.
    For example, Trade Contracts (the most common Path of Fire currency) is at 70% while Kralkatite Ore (Episode 1 currency) is at 45.5%.
    Which shows a downward trend for the game as a whole, it should affect Raids too. I can't seem to find Difluorite Crystals.

    It's similar with LS3 currencies, I have a comparison here between July 2017 and May 2018 (before Orrian Pearls were added):
    60.5% / 63.5%
    54.5% / 58%
    52.5% / 57.5%
    52% / 56.5%
    51.5% / 55%
    0% / 50.5%

    A downward trend in participation of Raids shouldn't be seen outside a downward trend for the game as a whole.

    Edit: important thing to note, Halls of Chains was released together with the Domain of Istan. Global game stats (trade contracts and kralkatite ore) went from 70% to 45.5%, a very high 24.5% reduction between the release of Path of Fire and the introduction of Episode 1. Meaning Hall of Chains had a much reduced playerbase to work with. A reduction that didn't have anything to do with Raids, but with the game as a whole.

    Which is unfortunate because it’s not like the pool of people is huge for Raids to begin with. Hopefully the new people that have joined the game can start filling these gaps.

  • CptAurellian.9537CptAurellian.9537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

    I think the difficulty is important, especially for the Soulless Horror which is a very weird designed boss that gets easier and easier the more you progress. At the end it's really stupidly easy compared to how it starts, which goes backwards to how Raid encounters should be. Maybe someone misunderstood the mechanics or something? But I doubt it was on purpose. Every other Raid boss gets progressively harder except for this one.

    While I agree that SH difficulty is probably a big factor in the drop between earlier raids and W5, I disagree with regard to SH's difficulty curve. There's not a lot of new stuff below 90%, but I never had the feeling that it becomes easier into the fight. It stays more or less the same and one mistake with the golem hurts you more when the platform is smaller.

    Praise delta!

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Which is unfortunate because it’s not like the pool of people is huge for Raids to begin with. Hopefully the new people that have joined the game can start filling these gaps.

    The player pool for Raids is always relevant to the pool of total available players. As the grand total is decreasing, shown by the downward trend of currencies, so does the pool of Raids. I think many believe episode 3 to be a triple release and have a new map, new fractal and new raid, so bring more players back to the game. We'll see how it goes.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @CptAurellian.9537 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:
    Find that very interesting is it the difficulty of wing 5 or a matter of demographics?

    I think the difficulty is important, especially for the Soulless Horror which is a very weird designed boss that gets easier and easier the more you progress. At the end it's really stupidly easy compared to how it starts, which goes backwards to how Raid encounters should be. Maybe someone misunderstood the mechanics or something? But I doubt it was on purpose. Every other Raid boss gets progressively harder except for this one.

    While I agree that SH difficulty is probably a big factor in the drop between earlier raids and W5, I disagree with regard to SH's difficulty curve. There's not a lot of new stuff below 90%, but I never had the feeling that it becomes easier into the fight. It stays more or less the same and one mistake with the golem hurts you more when the platform is smaller.

    I meant mostly about the walls. As the platform you fight on decreases, the distance you have to cover to reach a wall gap decreases as well, because overall the entire wall is much smaller, but the gap size stays the same. This brings this weird dynamic to the fight that near the end you don't even have to move to avoid the wall, or move very little. I just find the wall much harder to deal with when the fight is fresh, and much easier when it's near the end.

  • Weird I can join pugs just fine and clear raids with them.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

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

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

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

    Cairn is very interesting because Bastion was released with Episode 1 of LW3, by the time that happened a lot of the players that initially went into Heart of Thorns stopped playing. That's easy to verify using map currencies and see for example that Bloodstone Rubies are at 60-63% based on the time period. This means that the pool of players left playing the game when Bastion became available was much smaller than the pool available for Vale Guardian, which was released a month after the expansion hit and had a much larger playerbase. So Cairn's percentages versus the remaining playerbase might even be higher than Vale Guardian although that's impossible to verify with the data we have.

    It's very similar with Hall of Chains, although it has only 7.4% (or 9.2% adjusted for Path of Fire owners), remember that only 45.5% of the players have the currency of LW4 Episode 1 (Kralkatite), meaning a LOT of Path of Fire players stopped playing before Episode 1 was released, this obviously includes many Raiders too. So even that -small- 7.4% number for Soulless Horror is in reality a much larger percentage over the actual remaining playerbase of the game.

    We don't have defluorite crystal data, I hope gw2eff does add those, and at the same time add the next currency we'll get in Episode 3, just to see how many people are -still- around when the next Raid comes, so "Omg only a tiny 5% is Raiding, Raids are dead content" comments can be easily avoided.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:

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

    And that’s just the kill, correct?

    Indeed. Unfortunately efficiency doesn't track individual kills, so we can't differentiate between people that killed boss once, and then stopped, and those that keep killing it
    (same problem with dungeons, by the way - efficiency doesn't track runs, only full dungeon completion)

    I'd say that there's another, more telling statistics on gw2eff - magnetites and gaeting crystals. 45% of gw2eff accounts has at least 1 magnetite, but only 9% has at least one gaeting crystal. For a 100, it's 24% and 5% (comparing much higher values obviously has less sense, because first 4 wings have been out far more, and there's more of them).

    So, it seems that while for 4 first wings people just moved to easier bosses of the next wing even if they didn't have previous wing harder bosses done, they move to wing 5 generally only afther they have done the harder bosses of first 4 wings. Even if we're talking only the 2 middle events of wing 5.
    And obviously noone starts raiding at wing 5 (while there were were people starting not at VG, but at escort or Cairn).

    It would be interesting if wing 6 was one of the easier ones. We could then see if it's the difficulty, or other things that are the more important factors here.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It would be interesting if wing 6 was one of the easier ones. We could then see if it's the difficulty, or other things that are the more important factors here.

    Well difficulty is a very important factor and it's rather obvious if you check poor Slothasor, it has the second lowest rates, only behind Soulless Horror.
    I doubt they will release a Wing that is all too easy, even if Wing 4 has 3 easy bosses, but there is still Deimos.

    If we check the actual completion of the Raid wings:
    Vale Guardian: 30% / Sabetha: 18.7% 11.3% difference
    Slothasor: 17.5% / Matthias: 15% 2.5% difference
    Escort: 29.6% / Xera: 12.6% 17% difference
    Cairn: 20.5% / Deimos: 12.8% 7.7% difference
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% / Dhuum: 4.8% 2.6% difference

    Wing 2 and Wing 5 are the most consistent Wings, with Wing 3 (no surprise with Escort being there) having the highest difference. Escort is the second highest, while Xera is the second to last in completion.

    I expect Wing 6 to be more like Wing 1, having easier first boss and harder last boss but not such a huge difference, or like Wing 5 but with lower overall difficulty. Same consistency, but higher numbers

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 9, 2018

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @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.

    The calender is a good idea (since it's a method I'm familiar with and currently using). Problem is you can provide the tools but in the end, it depends on the user to utilize it. Take method (B), can easily be criticised as exclusive just like legendary armors instead of incentive. (D) is similar to what qt, metabattle, snowcrows etc are doing, sharing info or knowledge(even welcome and open for feedbacks since it's in the open) yet...you know the rest of the story. There is no perfect system or none that I known of, as it requires a perfect human to make and utilize one.

    Everyone raids for a reason, any incentive and additional rewards like legendary will be a motivation bonus thus welcomed. If one doesn't like raid feature, then the content just ain't them. (If you don't like the job, it's pointless to find excuses e.g. salary to force/try to convince yourself (not going to last even if you got the offer). One may like and plays football but dislike or clueless to 'ping pong' although both is sports; and yet they find it fine(?).

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

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

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

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ohoni.6057 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

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

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

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

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Ohoni.6057 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Tyson.5160 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    According to GW2 Efficiency 30% of people have done Vale Guardian. 7% Have done Soulless Horror.

    To be more specific:
    Vale Guardian: 30% or 52,277 players
    Slothasor: 17.5% or 30,619 players
    Escort: 29.6% or 47,095 players
    Cairn: 20.5% or 35,900 players
    Soulless Horror: 7.4% or 12,946 players

    Also, according to gw2efficiency there is 22% less players owning Path of Fire (71.7%) than Heart of Thorns (93.5%) The completion percentages are out of the 100% of gw2efficiency accounts, not only from eligible players. For some reason the percentages of those that have the achievements do not match the number of players that have each expansion (don't know how gw2eff works). Total number of players is 195262, but in the achievement page they compare with 174,935 I don't know they get that number.
    According to the total stat page, 182,599 have Heart of Thorns and 140,111 have Path of Fire, which makes the actual percentages (when adjusted for eligibility) as follows:

    Vale Guardian: 28.6%
    Slothasor: 16.7%
    Escort: 25.7%
    Cairn: 19.6%
    Soulless Horror: 9.2%

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

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

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

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

    You can't design an entire mode of the game to not be played by the overwhelming majority of players, particularly if there is story and rewards locked behind it (and both are true of GW2 raids). The ONLY way that the existing raids could possibly get away with being "challenging content for players who want challenging content," would be if A. there were some other way that every other player in the game could experience the story and work toward the rewards, some sort of "less challenging" variation on the content, or B. The existing raids had zero story content whatsoever (like Queen's Gauntlet encounters), and zero rewards that were exclusive to the mode.

    You can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want to have elements that would attract non-raiders to the mode, then you have to accept that non-raiders will want into the mode, and want to change it to their interests, and there are more of them than there are of you, so work out how you'd like to share, rather than pondering whether you should.

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    Of course you can. It's called "being diverse".

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

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    To further prove this find me any MMO in the last 30 years that has players that play 100% of all content released.

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

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ohoni.6057 said:
    Diverse is allowing various people to play different modes, not designing the mode to be deliberately exclusive.

    You got it wrong. Diverse is having content for lots of different kinds of players, not allowing various people to play different modes.
    Diverse is having content for... diverse types of players. It's in the meaning of the word: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diverse

    including many different types of people or things
    varied or different

    But what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread? You have another thread to talk about your ideal game, why come and derail this one?

  • ButcherofMalakir.4067ButcherofMalakir.4067 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ohoni.6057 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    Of course you can. It's called "being diverse".

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

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    To further prove this find me any MMO in the last 30 years that has players that play 100% of all content released.

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

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

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.