Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of difficulty settings? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of difficulty settings?

Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited September 2, 2019 in Fractals, Dungeons, and Raids

Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

Not like players haven't been asking for years, and it would certainly help fight some of the toxic culture that raid designs have fostered against newer raiders and those not as “twitch” inclined.... Confused as to this decision, and the team is certainly not doing “right” for the player base here.

Edit- To put this into perspective, Raids were introduced in 2015 and the team hasn’t done anything that makes Raids more inclusive to more players. And I’m not personally saying this, but I can guarantee that players are still thinking “The devs don’t care or listen to our feedback.”

And yes, I have my full set of medium legendary raid armor already.

Comments

  • @Swagger.1459 said:
    Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

    It's a cheaper investment. You've almost certainly read about how complicated it is to manage multiple difficulties, because it's never just "change a little health, change the enrage timer;" there are always lots of other considerations to make it a worthwhile challenge. (Look no further than Shattered Observatory T1 vs T2, vs T3 vs T4 vs CM.)

    In contrast, extending the "bounty" concept to include 10-player limits is part & parcel of creating the newer maps. (Not cheap; just cheaper.) It's also more accessible because it doesn't require people coordinating top tier builds. (My friend is thinking "Freezie" from Wintersday, although I'm more pessimistic.) This makes it more likely that it might attract people who hate the very idea of raids and wish ANet had never heard of them.


    Of course: the proof is in the pudding. We really have no idea what ANet has planned. The good news is that whatever it is ... is already done; it's going to happen no matter how good or bad an idea it is. The bad news is that whatever it is... it's already done; it's going to happen no matter how good or bad an idea it is.

    Accordingly, I'm withholding criticism, praise, or even cautious optimism about Strikes. When it releases, when I've tried a few, when the community has tried a few (and loves or hates them), when we see whether in fact it attracts people like skritt to shinies, when we see whether it has any effect on who raids... well, that is some months away. I can wait.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

    Because new content beats old content as far as reach and players trying it. Basic logic.

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Confused as to this decision, and the team is certainly not doing “right” for the player base here.

    If strikes work out and open an easier path for people to prepare for raids, raids won't need multiple difficulties.

    If not, it is questionable that multiple raid difficulties would have accomplished this. Strikes allow for an all new approach to challenge (and train players).

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And I’m not personally saying this, but I can guarantee that players are still thinking “The devs don’t care or listen to our feedback.”

    Please only speak for yourself. Last I checked the crowd demanding multiple difficulties was not the overwhelming majority and I have not yet seen you prove the opposite.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

    Because new content beats old content as far as reach and players trying it. Basic logic.

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Confused as to this decision, and the team is certainly not doing “right” for the player base here.

    If strikes work out and open an easier path for people to prepare for raids, raids won't need multiple difficulties.

    If not, it is questionable that multiple raid difficulties would have accomplished this. Strikes allow for an all new approach to challenge (and train players).

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And I’m not personally saying this, but I can guarantee that players are still thinking “The devs don’t care or listen to our feedback.”

    Please only speak for yourself. Last I checked the crowd demanding multiple difficulties was not the overwhelming majority and I have not yet seen you prove the opposite.

    Raiders are the minority of the player base, and difficulty settings don’t ruin that for them period. That’s “basic logic”, along with showing the entire player base that the team is interested in getting more players to participate, and have fun with, end game content.

    Edit- The other “basic logic” with difficulty settings is that it gets more players involved with actual Raids, and they improve their skills, at their own pace, over time, while still enjoying that content. And eventually that creates more experienced players for higher level groups to run with.

  • The other “basic logic” with difficulty settings is that it gets more players involved with actual Raids,

    no, it doesn't necessarily
    People who are intellectually opposed to raids aren't going to try "easy mode" raids, even if it were cost effective to add tiers.

    Raiders are the minority of the player base

    Which is fine; ANet never expected it to appeal to the majority, which is why they could make them with so few developers. The more homogeneous the community, the easier it is to design content that appeals to them. It is geometrically, if not astronomically more difficult as the variety of players increases.

    More to the point: if ANet wants to attract the 85% who aren't raiding, it's not going to happen by doing a variation of the same thing. Trying to find a middle ground between open world and raids is ultimately going to make it easier for people to bridge the gap.

    Of course, that assumes that Missions will be interesting to the right group, challenging enough, rewarding enough, and that ANet doesn't forget about them in 9 months.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    The other “basic logic” with difficulty settings is that it gets more players involved with actual Raids,

    no, it doesn't necessarily
    People who are intellectually opposed to raids aren't going to try "easy mode" raids, even if it were cost effective to add tiers.

    Raiders are the minority of the player base

    Which is fine; ANet never expected it to appeal to the majority, which is why they could make them with so few developers. The more homogeneous the community, the easier it is to design content that appeals to them. It is geometrically, if not astronomically more difficult as the variety of players increases.

    More to the point: if ANet wants to attract the 85% who aren't raiding, it's not going to happen by doing a variation of the same thing. Trying to find a middle ground between open world and raids is ultimately going to make it easier for people to bridge the gap.

    Of course, that assumes that Missions will be interesting to the right group, challenging enough, rewarding enough, and that ANet doesn't forget about them in 9 months.

    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

  • @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    We're not talking about "an mmo;" we're talking about this MMO.


    You asked a question. A couple of people have offered answers. I don't know what you're expecting to see that will justify to your satisfaction that ANet made a sensible choice. (I'm not arguing that they made the best choice or the right one; as I keep saying, we don't know anything at all about the actual implementation, so there's little to discuss.) There are good reasons to try something new, even though that is not your preference.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • thrag.9740thrag.9740 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Edit- To put this into perspective, Raids were introduced in 2015 and the team hasn’t done anything that makes Raids more inclusive to more players.

    I am so tired of this false hood being perpetuated. In that time Anet has:

    -made trio
    -made escort
    -updated spirit woods to give LI
    -updated twisted castle to give LI
    -wing 4 has 3 bosses that are notably easier than other bosses in game, one boss is so easy it has been soloed by both thief and druid builds
    -wing 5, while much more challenging, still has a one of its four LI geared towards new players (rainbow road)

    It is true that Anet hasn't implemented an easy mode. But, any experienced raider can tell you there is a large fluctuation of difficulty between the various fights, and typically the final fight in a wing is the hardest one. I didn't start raiding until after wing 3 was released (at least not in a serious way). I started with weekly escort, and started to slowly build up my knowledge by working my way up (trio, then kc, then vg and gorse etc). Unfortunately a lot of new players are not aware of this large range of difficulty.

    The community talks of raids as a monolith. They say absurdly uninformed things like, 'raids are all one difficulty', which is very much so untrue. Dhuum is not the same difficulty as escort.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    We're not talking about "an mmo;" we're talking about this MMO.


    You asked a question. A couple of people have offered answers. I don't know what you're expecting to see that will justify to your satisfaction that ANet made a sensible choice. (I'm not arguing that they made the best choice or the right one; as I keep saying, we don't know anything at all about the actual implementation, so there's little to discuss.) There are good reasons to try something new, even though that is not your preference.

    Your answer was “it’s a cheaper investment”, but is that really true? Or just your feeling off of what you envision difficulty setting to involve?

    I mentioned this stuff long ago, but city of heroes allowed players to change the “level values”...

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Notoriety

    of the enemies within their instanced missions and “raids”. Those are selectable value changes for content already created, as opposed to the time and resources needed for the creation of all new maps, bosses, encounters... I also suggested a player and npc buff/debuff mechanics design as a way to potentially introduce a creative type of “difficulty settings”....

    I asked that question to you because I did play a game with difficulty settings and my experience leads me to believe that it makes content more appealing and approachable for all levels of players. You’re right, some people will never raid no matter what, just like some won’t ever pvp, but I can guarantee that if difficulty settings were implemented then you’d see much higher participation rates compared to what we have now.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781

    And for reference...

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Suggestion-Raid-Difficulty-Settings-Merged

    Part of my post...

    “Difficulty scaling allows players to decrease or increase the challenge level. This works out well for players of all skill levels. Rewards can be scaled appropriately to match.

    Let’s look at some possible ways to implement this…

    *Enemy scaling… http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Notoriety

    *Player stat scaling and descaling. Pretty self explanatory.

    *Boon buff and Boon debuff scaling. This could either be permanent boons placed on players or prevented, or have boon potency and timers increased or decreased.”

    Using those difficulty scaling ideas as the example, I’m not sure it’s more cost effective to essentially create 10 player dungeons over those suggestions for content already in place.

    Edit- This is pretty interesting... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Special_Forces_Training_Area “Added with the April 19th, 2016 update.“

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭

    I think that "we're releasing the content that we already have" is probably not a very exciting thing to announce ever.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sarrs.4831 said:
    I think that "we're releasing the content that we already have" is probably not a very exciting thing to announce ever.

    I don’t think you can say that, it would be more like... “We’ve been listening to your feedback over the years and we are proud to introduce a new function called “Threat Scaling” to make it easier for players of all experience levels to participate and enjoy our 10 player end game content! Along with this, the team will be even more focused with pumping out more Raids regularly for the future!”

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    The other “basic logic” with difficulty settings is that it gets more players involved with actual Raids,

    no, it doesn't necessarily
    People who are intellectually opposed to raids aren't going to try "easy mode" raids, even if it were cost effective to add tiers.

    Raiders are the minority of the player base

    Which is fine; ANet never expected it to appeal to the majority, which is why they could make them with so few developers. The more homogeneous the community, the easier it is to design content that appeals to them. It is geometrically, if not astronomically more difficult as the variety of players increases.

    More to the point: if ANet wants to attract the 85% who aren't raiding, it's not going to happen by doing a variation of the same thing. Trying to find a middle ground between open world and raids is ultimately going to make it easier for people to bridge the gap.

    Of course, that assumes that Missions will be interesting to the right group, challenging enough, rewarding enough, and that ANet doesn't forget about them in 9 months.

    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    4 which were based around gear threadmills.

    0 Which had no gear threadmills.

    All of which the radining cummunity was always niche compared to the entire playerbase (yes, even WoW).

    Your point?

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

    Because new content beats old content as far as reach and players trying it. Basic logic.

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Confused as to this decision, and the team is certainly not doing “right” for the player base here.

    If strikes work out and open an easier path for people to prepare for raids, raids won't need multiple difficulties.

    If not, it is questionable that multiple raid difficulties would have accomplished this. Strikes allow for an all new approach to challenge (and train players).

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And I’m not personally saying this, but I can guarantee that players are still thinking “The devs don’t care or listen to our feedback.”

    Please only speak for yourself. Last I checked the crowd demanding multiple difficulties was not the overwhelming majority and I have not yet seen you prove the opposite.

    Raiders are the minority of the player base, and difficulty settings don’t ruin that for them period. That’s “basic logic”, along with showing the entire player base that the team is interested in getting more players to participate, and have fun with, end game content.

    Edit- The other “basic logic” with difficulty settings is that it gets more players involved with actual Raids, and they improve their skills, at their own pace, over time, while still enjoying that content. And eventually that creates more experienced players for higher level groups to run with.

    You are assuming that many of the players who are currently not raiding WANT to raid. I do not. There is maybe a small fringe group who due to different issues has not started raiding, but besides those and given other MMORPGS, chances are high the remaining non raiders are not interested in raids (and will likely not be interested in strike missions).

    I doubt the team wants the vast majority of playres to participate. It's even a risk to introduce strikes at this point. It makes GW2 more raid centric design wise. Given the disproportions in played content, if this does not pan out, you will have a lot of wasted developer resources.

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

    Short answer: because they don't want their current Raids (or future ones) to have multiple difficulty settings.

    Long answer: Instead they create a new type of content to bridge the gap between the rest of the game and Raids. Why make new difficulty settings for Raids, when you can keep them as they are and instead make new content as an introduction to the actual Raids? Resources better spent.

    The real question about raid accessibility isn't how to make Raids in general more accessible, but how to make the current ones more accessible. Introducing scaling or more difficulty modes to current Raids, won't make their current investment (the normal difficulty) any more accessible than it is. So they are trying new ways to increase the value of their investment.

    Further, there is the big question of just how many players in this game are even interested in instanced content, which is a rather low percentage. If a "tiny minority" plays Raids, imagine how tiny the population of "total instanced content player" - "raiders" is.

    As for your suggestion about scaling, it won't work. Health and damage are never the problem with Raids, mechanics are. And not all mechanics translate well with damage scaling.

  • kasoki.5180kasoki.5180 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    I assume because its easier to create Strikes than raids, so its more about "bigger picture stuff". If strikes turn out to be successful they will probably be able to publish them at a more frequent rate than they are with raids.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    chances are high the remaining non raiders are not interested in raids (and will likely not be interested in strike missions).

    There is a poll on another topic, and it seems majority of non-raiders want Strikes. Of course its not really representative of entire game's population but it is something

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

    @kasoki.5180 said:
    There is a poll on another topic, and it seems majority of non-raiders want Strikes. Of course its not really representative of entire game's population but it is something

    Only 65 non-raiders expressing interest in Strikes. Meanwhile, those not interested will simply not vote, so the poll is heavily biased towards those that are interested in it. Also, a funny result of that poll is that 19% of the players are in fact raiders, that's something for sure.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2, 2019

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    We're not talking about "an mmo;" we're talking about this MMO.


    You asked a question. A couple of people have offered answers. I don't know what you're expecting to see that will justify to your satisfaction that ANet made a sensible choice. (I'm not arguing that they made the best choice or the right one; as I keep saying, we don't know anything at all about the actual implementation, so there's little to discuss.) There are good reasons to try something new, even though that is not your preference.

    You shouldnt imo base the arguement of having easy mode and hard mode on getting the ppl that hate raids into raiding, those ppl will hate it regardless and nothing will get them into it. similarly u shouldnt base the dificulty of hard mode around the top of the top.

    The important bit and the key to diff dificulties is to help the bigger subset of ppl that simply dont want to spend the time u'd spend in a normal raid just to clear it/experience it. An easier mode thats based largely around just experiencing it, that its at most a couple wipes hard will serve to get most ppl through the encounter just fine.

    On the other hand ppl who want and like the harder encounters, the challenge and the recognition/loot that comes from it will look at the hard mode and such hard mode should be hard.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Because the word "raids" is tainted now by player expectations. Raiders do not want their precious raids to be "dumbed down" with easy mode, and will reacti violently to it. Non-raiders by now know, that raids are that toxic and difficult content they don't want to even get close to. Making a new type of content, and calling it "strikes" sidestep that issue. If they'll be unpopular, Anet can just abandon them and go back to raids. If they'll be somewhat popular, they will be an intermediate content between OW and Raids. But if they happen to be significantly more popular, then Anet can simply abandon Raids and concentrate on Strikes from now on. Just like they abandoned Dungeons for Fractals once before. And as an added bonus, they can hype it up as a new content.
    So, for Anet, it's probably a good move.

    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.

  • Shikaru.7618Shikaru.7618 Member ✭✭✭

    Why is it so important to you that the encounters be the same encounters dumbed down instead of new content that is specifically designed to bridge the skill gap and help players get better? It's very well possible that anet determined the dumbed down version of current raids wouldnt accomplish the goal of bridging the skill gap because they're constrained to existing boss mechanics. If they're going to create new mechanics to substitute existing ones, might as well create a new guided boss fight without those constraints that teaches players good habits.

  • There are players that might play both. If there is easy and hard mode then there is no new content for players that already raid and also new player will not come since raids are "toxic".

    I will try strike and i play raids. I wouldnt even try easy mode raids. If there is decent reward and completion of strike require some skill then I will gladly speedclear strike.

  • I really have no idea.

    Please, please tell me how killing an unrelated boss, with different mechanics, in a different setting/instance, will help a player learn the existing raid bosses? Or help PUG commanders find 10-man quickness/alacrity faster?

    That being said, Strikes might not be intended as a learning environment to get into raids. They might be intended to replace raids altogether as the game's 10-man content. That's my guess, personally.

  • @gateless gate.8406 said:
    I really have no idea.

    Please, please tell me how killing an unrelated boss, with different mechanics, in a different setting/instance, will help a player learn the existing raid bosses? Or help PUG commanders find 10-man quickness/alacrity faster?

    That being said, Strikes might not be intended as a learning environment to get into raids. They might be intended to replace raids altogether as the game's 10-man content. That's my guess, personally.

    That’s exactly what I’m thinking there’s only going to be one or two more raid releases at the most then all strikes.

  • Aaralyna.3104Aaralyna.3104 Member ✭✭✭

    We don't know how strikes will look like. It could be indeed like Freezie which was an easy mode raid I would say. I have done that one a few times with pug groups (few times killed it and sometimes failed it as well due to enrage timer and not enough dps). Normally I never set foot in raids because they take a lot of organising, time and I am simply scared I would have to copy some build and do some perfect skill rota instead of just play how I like to play my toon and know it. Bottom line: I cannot do some perfect skill rota nor am equipped to min/max. Its not what I seek in a game. It is fun and being able to clear everything over time to experience the full game (thats why the easy mode). The fact I do not play regular raids does not mean I am against hardmode raids, I am actually in favor of it just because there are players that like to challenge themselves. But this hardmode in a way of a CM (like Migraine has in example). I am also for CM in strikes btw.

  • Glider.5792Glider.5792 Member ✭✭✭

    Im worried about the rewards actualy. Rewards cannot be better than raid rewards, and raid rewards are already extremly lackluster. Will the casual playerbase even do the strikes more than once ?
    Like, best i can see is 1g and some rares as a reward for killing these bosses, with maybe some unique exotic skins. Maybe ascended with extremly low drop chance ?
    Also, are they gonna have their reward reset daily ? Weekly ? Can you grind them ?

    Point is, they cannot have better rewards than raids, since then, those people will have even less reason to try actual raids.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeFWMeskOJhk8N-SvOFCJXA
    Fractal speed kills, raids, Black Lion Chest Openings, random.

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

    @Glider.5792 said:
    Point is, they cannot have better rewards than raids, since then, those people will have even less reason to try actual raids.

    This works in the opposite way too, if their rewards are much lower than the average open world farm fiesta, then the people Strikes are aimed at, will have no reason to try them. Which means Strike rewards are in a very bad spot since open world farm fiestas are much more rewarding than Raids. I expect a few achievements, a couple unique/exclusive skins and that's it mainly. It will be interesting to see how they plan to keep Strikes relevant in the long term.

  • Do you think strikes will be repeatable or once per day/week?

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

    @ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:
    Do you think strikes will be repeatable or once per day/week?

    Hopefully there will be a cap, daily or weekly, so any possible unique rewards aren't acquired on the first day.

  • Strikes will probably replace raids in further development process. And that is probably a good thing, because so far general GW2 raiding community mindset seems unsalvageable at this point. They are still living in a dream and not noticing a ruin around them.

  • @Rednik.3809 said:
    Strikes will probably replace raids in further development process. And that is probably a good thing, because so far general GW2 raiding community mindset seems unsalvageable at this point. They are still living in a dream and not noticing a ruin around them.

    I dont mind if strike replace raids if they will have same or higher dificulty as raids. Name is not that important to me

  • @ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

    @Rednik.3809 said:
    Strikes will probably replace raids in further development process. And that is probably a good thing, because so far general GW2 raiding community mindset seems unsalvageable at this point. They are still living in a dream and not noticing a ruin around them.

    I dont mind if strike replace raids if they will have same or higher dificulty as raids. Name is not that important to me

    They will not, tho. I guess Anet, after reducing devs numbers, is no longer thinks that it is plausible to pour resources into content that only small minority is going to see.

  • @Rednik.3809 said:

    @ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

    @Rednik.3809 said:
    Strikes will probably replace raids in further development process. And that is probably a good thing, because so far general GW2 raiding community mindset seems unsalvageable at this point. They are still living in a dream and not noticing a ruin around them.

    I dont mind if strike replace raids if they will have same or higher dificulty as raids. Name is not that important to me

    They will not, tho. I guess Anet, after reducing devs numbers, is no longer thinks that it is plausible to pour resources into content that only small minority is going to see.

    Interesting fact. There is a poll about strike missions. In that poll 1/4 of players that want to play strike are raiders. If they remove raids then big part of tgat 1/4 will go away

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    We're not talking about "an mmo;" we're talking about this MMO.


    You asked a question. A couple of people have offered answers. I don't know what you're expecting to see that will justify to your satisfaction that ANet made a sensible choice. (I'm not arguing that they made the best choice or the right one; as I keep saying, we don't know anything at all about the actual implementation, so there's little to discuss.) There are good reasons to try something new, even though that is not your preference.

    Your answer was “it’s a cheaper investment”, but is that really true? Or just your feeling off of what you envision difficulty setting to involve?

    I mentioned this stuff long ago, but city of heroes allowed players to change the “level values”...

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Notoriety

    of the enemies within their instanced missions and “raids”.

    Notoriety in CoH did not affect raids at all. It only impacted 1-8 person content.
    Why are you trying to tell people otherwise?

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I sense a second pve leggy armor set incoming.

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @Rednik.3809 said:
    They will not, tho. I guess Anet, after reducing devs numbers, is no longer thinks that it is plausible to pour resources into content that only small minority is going to see.

    Not really convincing statement. It's more likely that 4 ls dev teams and the new invention of Strike missions are going to tackle the problem of lesser and lesser content we got in the past together with longer waiting times a.k.a. not meeting the 3 months release cycles for the LS.
    Let's be honest one story every 3 months isn't going to hold any long-term player in the game, be it raider or non-raider. The story content can be played on a single evening, let it be a week for players that only log in 1h every day. Afterwards you have the achievements of which most of them evolved more and more to a grind fiesta. Examples therefore are the 3 x 1k mob slaying in Dragonfall, the Skyscale mount (which should have rather had a casual acquirement journey) and Vision. Both of the latter were tweaked by heavily putting map currencies in follow-up events like Dragonbash, Boss-Rush and Festival of the Four Winds.

    We have to face it: PvP is out-of-favor, WvW heavily slacks fresh innovation, challenging PvE-content is tuned down (8 months till last fractal release and nothing newly announced on the horizon, raids have their 9-xx months cadence as well). And not to forget: Guild content - what is that?
    What's left is exploring Tyria with your family/friends/guild mates and don't tell me it's not getting boring after several 100% map journeys and grinding gold for legendaries or shiny stuff due to repeating events/maps over and over again. Very innovative and very profitable sources for Anet. /s

    Be serious and tell me is this the focus of GW2 that will keep the game alive? Even if there is a lot of community (left) in this game mentioned things can't and will not cover enough revenues to pay the costs for an upkeep of the game. Reasonable business tells us a different story and when I saw that clown of marketing on the stage I had a really queasy and uneasy feeling about the future.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3, 2019

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    We're not talking about "an mmo;" we're talking about this MMO.


    You asked a question. A couple of people have offered answers. I don't know what you're expecting to see that will justify to your satisfaction that ANet made a sensible choice. (I'm not arguing that they made the best choice or the right one; as I keep saying, we don't know anything at all about the actual implementation, so there's little to discuss.) There are good reasons to try something new, even though that is not your preference.

    Your answer was “it’s a cheaper investment”, but is that really true? Or just your feeling off of what you envision difficulty setting to involve?

    I mentioned this stuff long ago, but city of heroes allowed players to change the “level values”...

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Notoriety

    of the enemies within their instanced missions and “raids”.

    Notoriety in CoH did not affect raids at all. It only impacted 1-8 person content.
    Why are you trying to tell people otherwise?

    These are the specifics...

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Task_Force

    “The team leader Notoriety level setting affected enemy spawns according to specific criteria. It also affected the completion reward at the end, with a same-level rare recipe (if chosen) on Heroic, +1 level on Rugged, and +2 level on Invincible.”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Strike_Force

    “The team leader Notoriety level setting affected enemy spawns according to specific criteria. It also affected the completion reward at the end, with a same-level rare recipe (if chosen) on Villainous, +1 level on Vicious, and +2 level on Relentless.”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Trial

    “Trials will spawn enemies at the team leader's level plus their notoriety”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Raid

    These 2 were open world content and bosses that did not utilize Notoriety.

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Incarnate_Trial

    Made for 8-16 and 12-24 players depending on the I trial. Didn’t use Notoriety, but had dynamic scaling.

    “Almost all Archvillains in Incarnate Trials have a power called "Scaling" which scales their health, damage and regeneration according to the number of players within the league participating ensuring they can pose a challenge and still be defeated regardless of the number of players.”

    ...Yes, Notoriety was also used for https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Mission and https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Mission_Architect

    So Notoriety was a usable feature in the majority of the content, and Incarnate Trials were dynamically scaled according to number of players. Both were great QoL features that allowed players of all experience levels to enjoy content and challenge themselves more if they were looking for it. And regardless, GW2 doesn’t use difficulty settings at all for their instanced content, they only use dynamic scaling for bosses in open world... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dynamic_event#Event_participation and utilize https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dynamic_level_adjustment for other content, which aren’t the same as what I brought up. But CoH had this too.. https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Sidekick and dynamic level scaling for some content.

    And CoH had a customizable UI, great combat system, clearer visual effects, tons of roles to play, great balance, great character customization with both builds and aesthetics... All from a game launched back in 2004.

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    I did. In fact I even raided in that game at the top level. What I learned from that experience is:

    • to get decent encounters you can't just adjust the numbers (hitpoints, damage etc.) but need to hand-tune each difficulty level by itself, thus making creating difficulty levels almost as expensive as creating all new encounters
    • most people skip the lower difficulty levels as quickly as possible or even expect others to carry them on difficulties they aren't up to because they find the reduced rewards of lower difficulties beneath them
    • lower difficulty settings are more forgiving towards player errors (or they wouldn't be lower difficulty) and thus allow players to utilize strategies that power through the encounters that mostly don't work on higher difficulties, thus helping next to nothing when trying to learn how to do the encounter

    In my experience from older games difficulty settings for challenging instanced content are wasted development potential that would be much better spent in creating new content that helps players gain the skill necessary to survive in a variety of more difficult content, with the added benefit of producing more varied content at the same time.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 4, 2019

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Did you ever play an mmo that had difficulty settings for instanced content?

    I did. In fact I even raided in that game at the top level. What I learned from that experience is:

    • to get decent encounters you can't just adjust the numbers (hitpoints, damage etc.) but need to hand-tune each difficulty level by itself, thus making creating difficulty levels almost as expensive as creating all new encounters
    • most people skip the lower difficulty levels as quickly as possible or even expect others to carry them on difficulties they aren't up to because they find the reduced rewards of lower difficulties beneath them
    • lower difficulty settings are more forgiving towards player errors (or they wouldn't be lower difficulty) and thus allow players to utilize strategies that power through the encounters that mostly don't work on higher difficulties, thus helping next to nothing when trying to learn how to do the encounter

    In my experience from older games difficulty settings for challenging instanced content are wasted development potential that would be much better spent in creating new content that helps players gain the skill necessary to survive in a variety of more difficult content, with the added benefit of producing more varied content at the same time.

    You just killed your argument. You’re saying that players running a scaled down version of current raids won’t help to develop the skills necessary to run harder mode raids... But you think that easier-difficulty-than raids (aka Strikes) will somehow prepare players better for actual raids?

    It’s like taking a player who only zergs in wvw and dropping them on a competitive spvp team... That’s also like saying someone should practice the guitar so they can do better at the piano.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @gateless gate.8406 said:
    I really have no idea.

    Please, please tell me how killing an unrelated boss, with different mechanics, in a different setting/instance, will help a player learn the existing raid bosses? Or help PUG commanders find 10-man quickness/alacrity faster?

    It'll help players get better working in a group and performing mechanics. When they get used to strikes, raids will be easier for them.

    That being said, Strikes might not be intended as a learning environment to get into raids. They might be intended to replace raids altogether as the game's 10-man content. That's my guess, personally.

    They specifically stated that it was intended to be a stepping stone into raids; not their replacement.

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You just killed your argument. You’re saying that players running a scaled down version of current raids won’t help to develop the skills necessary to run harder mode raids... But you think that easier-difficulty-than raids (aka Strikes) will somehow prepare players better for actual raids?

    It’s like taking a player who only zergs in wvw and dropping them on a competitive spvp team... That’s also like saying someone should practice the guitar so they can do better at the piano.

    No. It's learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need in all raid encounters rather than just learning a complex choreography without knowing why it was designed that way.

    It's the difference between learning your trade or just learning to mimick somebody's workflow without understanding why they are doing it that way.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 4, 2019

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You just killed your argument. You’re saying that players running a scaled down version of current raids won’t help to develop the skills necessary to run harder mode raids... But you think that easier-difficulty-than raids (aka Strikes) will somehow prepare players better for actual raids?

    It’s like taking a player who only zergs in wvw and dropping them on a competitive spvp team... That’s also like saying someone should practice the guitar so they can do better at the piano.

    No. It's learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need in all raid encounters rather than just learning a complex choreography without knowing why it was designed that way.

    It's the difference between learning your trade or just learning to mimick somebody's workflow without understanding why they are doing it that way.

    First you say...

    “lower difficulty settings are more forgiving towards player errors (or they wouldn't be lower difficulty) and thus allow players to utilize strategies that power through the encounters that mostly don't work on higher difficulties, thus helping next to nothing when trying to learn how to do the encounter”

    But then you are saying those lower difficulty Strikes (because they will not be as tough as raids) will...

    “It's learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need in all raid encounters rather than just learning a complex choreography without knowing why it was designed that way.”

    Like players won’t be “learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need” by doing the actual raids at a lower setting, and thus get more comfortable, confident and feel better at higher difficulty... No-no, only the lower difficulty and lower demanding “easier-mode-pseudo-raid” Strikes will accomplish that...

    You’re really not making any sense or helping your argument here.

    Edit- And I’m going to reiterate...

    Strikes are a “stepping stone” to raids. They will essentially be just like an “easier mode” raid. But somehow mentally you feel that doing the actual raid, and learning every element and boss about those current raids, on a easier setting, which will be comparable to doing Strikes, will not be beneficial... However, Strikes, that will be comparable to easier mode raids, but not the actual raids, will magically be beneficial...

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 4, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    However, Strikes, that will be comparable to easier mode raids, but not the actual raids, will magically be beneficial...

    That's you assuming. You have absolutely no idea how strikes will get implemented. Not to mention that starting from scratch allows for a lot more freedom in developing and creating content with certain goals in mind.

    Fractals were originally meant to introduce players to more challenging content. Now go take a look how similar fractals and raids are, especially lower tier fractals.

    That's pretty much the amount of distance you can assume between raids and strikes. So no, strikes and "easy" mode raids could be miles appart design and implementation wise. Since we don't know at this point, everything else is pure speculation.

  • Nepster.4275Nepster.4275 Member ✭✭✭

    Well, from the gameplay that they shown on the stream during the announcment I seen a big ice thing being bashed by some players and red circles appearing randomly(?) in the area so it can KINDA resemble a raid boss like MO or something, so basically bosses what you need to hit till it dies, but I doubt the difficulty of it will come near any raid because in raids mechanics are somewhat important too, and each boss has unique mechanics so, we still get back to the thing that this will be just a worldboss kind of thing for 10 man, or that snowy mini dungeon from last year.

  • I miss old school GW2 release dungeons.. This new modern stuff is just bad and really boring.

  • @Swagger.1459 said:
    Why invest resources in new 10 person content instead of putting that time and money into difficulty settings for current raids?

    Not like players haven't been asking for years, and it would certainly help fight some of the toxic culture that raid designs have fostered against newer raiders and those not as “twitch” inclined.... Confused as to this decision, and the team is certainly not doing “right” for the player base here.

    Edit- To put this into perspective, Raids were introduced in 2015 and the team hasn’t done anything that makes Raids more inclusive to more players. And I’m not personally saying this, but I can guarantee that players are still thinking “The devs don’t care or listen to our feedback.”

    And yes, I have my full set of medium legendary raid armor already.

    I have 100% interest in strikes, and still near like 0% interest in raids. I mean maybe this would change overtime, I did the first few wings but they really aren't that entertaining in the overall scheme. So Im glad we have a new mode, they murdered dungeons for fractals and hardly give any cadence to fractals it feels like while raids having been the new kid on the block has at least development going into it. (My main man WvW is suffer'n, events are nice and all but it only is good when they are actually going. Currently they are not so its not really bringing anything to the mode.)

    Im fine with raiders staying in their corner, I really don't have much interest in them growing or gaining momentum. But who knows strikes might give you way more raiders as that is their intended purpose. To get people used to mechanics, playstyles and ect (Probs won't work but we shall see.)

  • @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @gateless gate.8406 said:
    I really have no idea.

    Please, please tell me how killing an unrelated boss, with different mechanics, in a different setting/instance, will help a player learn the existing raid bosses? Or help PUG commanders find 10-man quickness/alacrity faster?

    It'll help players get better working in a group and performing mechanics. When they get used to strikes, raids will be easier for them.

    That being said, Strikes might not be intended as a learning environment to get into raids. They might be intended to replace raids altogether as the game's 10-man content. That's my guess, personally.

    They specifically stated that it was intended to be a stepping stone into raids; not their replacement.

    Raid participation isn't low simply because raids are not easy enough/the playerbase is not skillful enough. Most of the current raids are already very easy (usually only the final bosses of each raid wing are difficult/require significant group coordination), so there is something else standing in the way.

    Corporations say many, many things. Not even close to all of them are true. Many are intended as "masking" statements that sound plausible enough (strikes could indeed be intended or meant as a stepping stone -- it's not a totally absurd statement, just mostly absurd), but in truth skirt around or distract from the more upsetting truth/plan.

    See the recent "a future expansion isn't off the table" comment. Yes, it isn't off the table, just as almost anything isn't off the table. But it's more than likely not in development. If the company stated as such, that would likely have a negative effect on player happiness/game marketability, so instead they respond with an answer that sounds better yet isn't truly a lie. This is how the vast majority of corporations strategize their public statements. It's not recommended to take them as plainly true.

  • Shikaru.7618Shikaru.7618 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    You just killed your argument. You’re saying that players running a scaled down version of current raids won’t help to develop the skills necessary to run harder mode raids... But you think that easier-difficulty-than raids (aka Strikes) will somehow prepare players better for actual raids?

    It’s like taking a player who only zergs in wvw and dropping them on a competitive spvp team... That’s also like saying someone should practice the guitar so they can do better at the piano.

    No. It's learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need in all raid encounters rather than just learning a complex choreography without knowing why it was designed that way.

    It's the difference between learning your trade or just learning to mimick somebody's workflow without understanding why they are doing it that way.

    First you say...

    “lower difficulty settings are more forgiving towards player errors (or they wouldn't be lower difficulty) and thus allow players to utilize strategies that power through the encounters that mostly don't work on higher difficulties, thus helping next to nothing when trying to learn how to do the encounter”

    But then you are saying those lower difficulty Strikes (because they will not be as tough as raids) will...

    “It's learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need in all raid encounters rather than just learning a complex choreography without knowing why it was designed that way.”

    Like players won’t be “learning the basics of how to work as a team or how to recognise and react to mechanics. It's polishing the basic skills you need” by doing the actual raids at a lower setting, and thus get more comfortable, confident and feel better at higher difficulty... No-no, only the lower difficulty and lower demanding “easier-mode-pseudo-raid” Strikes will accomplish that...

    You’re really not making any sense or helping your argument here.

    Edit- And I’m going to reiterate...

    Strikes are a “stepping stone” to raids. They will essentially be just like an “easier mode” raid. But somehow mentally you feel that doing the actual raid, and learning every element and boss about those current raids, on a easier setting, which will be comparable to doing Strikes, will not be beneficial... However, Strikes, that will be comparable to easier mode raids, but not the actual raids, will magically be beneficial...

    Let me us your own analogy with the guitar. In order to play the guitar, we are going to say you need the following skills:

    1. Know how to tune the guitar
    2. Know how read sheet music
    3. Know how to play a chord

    Handing someone who has never played guitar before the sheet music for "Mary had a little lamb" is not going to help them learn "through the fire and the flames" because they're going to be just as clueless. It doesnt matter if it's easier. The average gw2 player does not know the elementary basics of instanced content. In other words mary had a little lamb is still too complicated because it assumes you know the fundamentals. Sure they can make it so that if you are able to play 2 random notes on the guitar you have "played" Mary had a little lamb but that does not teach people how to get into raids. Players still wouldnt know:

    1. What their traits do
    2. How to stack
    3. What the defiance bar is
    4. How to dodge efficiently

    Yes, we are making an assumption that strikes will teach people these things in isolation with an encounter specifically built to do so. It's likely wishful thinking since anets track record about teaching players their game has been god awful but that is what "stepping stone into raids" means to me. A specific encounter that tells you, "this boss has a mechanic called the break bar. these highlighted skills will deplete the break bar. The boss will wipe the group if the break bar is not broken. If you break it, deal massive bonus damage to the boss." Sure you can take vg, remove every mechanic and only keep the break bar. Is that really vg anymore?

©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.