A Message from Andrew Gray - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

A Message from Andrew Gray

123457>

Comments

  • Dante.1508Dante.1508 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dante.1508 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dante.1508 said:
    but I can tell you the map is meta-focused with a push-and-pull feel similar to WvW in a PvE setting.

    Yeah that there will never bring me back as pver i detest WvW and meta so having it as a core pve experience is like saying leave GW2 and uninstal, which i feel after reading that i should.. That sounds terrible.. as is WvW to this day.

    I for one just wanted more core tyria experiences..

    Do You hate Silverwastes as well?

    Yes with a passion.

    You said that:

    @Dante.1508 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Dante.1508 said:
    but I can tell you the map is meta-focused with a push-and-pull feel similar to WvW in a PvE setting.

    Yeah that there will never bring me back as pver i detest WvW and meta so having it as a core pve experience is like saying leave GW2 and uninstal, which i feel after reading that i should.. That sounds terrible.. as is WvW to this day.

    I for one just wanted more core tyria experiences..

    Do You hate Silverwastes as well?

    Very much so i avoid it like a plague unless hot story forces me there.. I only do hot for map completions on alts... i also avoid the other map below it as well.

    Sorry for the late reply i moved on from GW2 as i said above, i just popped back to see if anything changed.. i seems only nerfs for pvp again.. yes that will bring customers back for sure.

    Yes my apologies i came back at different days and thought i had not responded.. I'm not very active in GW2 lately so i don't keep tabs on the forums much.

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 25, 2020

    In regards to the raids I just wish there was a raid guide in game, also some backstory as to what's going going on and why. And a small strategy guide on boss mechanics, I mean you know it's senseless for heroes to go fight a boss without a plan.

    I still to this day do not know why we kill the things we do in them. WvW just needs to stop trying so hard to be an RTS and more about warfare/pvp.

  • bOTEB.1573bOTEB.1573 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I wonder, how were the last 8 months? Did strikes manage to get more people into raids? I just hope that we will see more raids in the near future.

    Wishlist:
    Improve GW2 performance. Add genuine DX12 support.

  • Blude.6812Blude.6812 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @bOTEB.1573 said:
    I wonder, how were the last 8 months? Did strikes manage to get more people into raids? I just hope that we will see more raids in the near future.

    Nope strikes did not trick me (don't know about others)into trying the elitest raids. No thanks, I hope Anet goes back to their roots.

  • dace.8019dace.8019 Member ✭✭✭

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:

    • Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.

    Further to this - the biggest obstacle for many people to get into Raids is actually other players and their join requirements equating to having more or less mastered the content already by linking LI. I fully understand why most Raiders do this and I'm sure you and the rest of the team do, too, but it compounds the problem you mention with respect to difficulty.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:
    --snip --

    Well said, IMO. I am a very casual player who tried the first strike mission when it came out. It was... ok. But it wasn't really content that engaged me and made me want to repeat it. Strikes certainly didn't encourage me to consider raids.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @bOTEB.1573 said:
    I wonder, how were the last 8 months? Did strikes manage to get more people into raids? I just hope that we will see more raids in the near future.

    I have played raids in other MMOs but for some reason the concept of raids in GW2 personally doesn't appeal to me. Strikes haven't interested me either and I have ignored them since I don't care about the rewards. Maybe it's because I just prefer the style of the open world content in this game as opposed to the instanced content.

  • Dantert.1803Dantert.1803 Member ✭✭✭

    About raids, why not adding a story mode where the content is a little easier, and a normal and hard mode(this would be the currrent one).
    So more people, also casuals and mid-casuals could enjoy it too.
    This also helps since for some people having a party of 10 is hard depending on timezone and time availability and those people could organize and clear the raid with smaller size parties at easy difficulty.

    Don't get me wrong, I like the strike missions and I think the more content the better but if you added them to move people towards raids it is not the right direction in my opinion

  • Katary.7096Katary.7096 Member ✭✭✭

    @Super Hayes.6890 said:
    Fact is, the small percent of the player base that raids is not going to get a big population boost from strikes. If you want to bring more players to raid content, especially casuals, you must create an easy, medium and hard difficulty with scaling rewards. This allows the mechanics to be learned on an easier setting which will increase the player pool and close the gap to the higher difficulties. Strikes will not accomplish this.

    According to that logic Fractals of the Mists would have to be really popular in the Guild Wars 2 playerbase, since every fractal has at least four difficulty settings to play it on and the rewards scale up the higher you go. But is FotM really that successful? Why does the game mode not receive more support from the developers if it has a large fan base?

    @wrathmagik.3518 said:
    Or they could just stop trying to be WoW, which is a raid centric mmo. GW2 never had and never will have a big raid community. If you want raiding this isn't the mmo you goto. You goto wow or FF14. Instead of doing what they're good at (pve exploration/puzzles/dynamic events)

    Even in WoW raid content is not that widely played. That is the reason why they created LFR, because not enough people were playing raid content.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2020

    @Katary.7096 said:

    @Super Hayes.6890 said:
    Fact is, the small percent of the player base that raids is not going to get a big population boost from strikes. If you want to bring more players to raid content, especially casuals, you must create an easy, medium and hard difficulty with scaling rewards. This allows the mechanics to be learned on an easier setting which will increase the player pool and close the gap to the higher difficulties. Strikes will not accomplish this.

    According to that logic Fractals of the Mists would have to be really popular in the Guild Wars 2 playerbase, since every fractal has at least four difficulty settings to play it on and the rewards scale up the higher you go. But is FotM really that successful? Why does the game mode not receive more support from the developers if it has a large fan base?

    Because at some point devs kind of forgot about what different tiers of difficulty are for.

    Different tiers of difficulty are there so people that like different levels of challenge can all be happy playing the same type of content. Notice, that most of those people are not going to graduate from their chosen difficulty tier to a higher one, and only a small number will want to progress through all the tiers.

    Feeding new players into the highest-tier community is either a secondary goal, or a byproduct. Main goal of multiple difficulty tiers is justification for increased resource usage for that type of content.

    This is not how Fractals work. The lower difficulty tiers are designed as strictly intermediate, transitional type of content. Something you pass through in your way up to the top. As such, ultimately they appeal practially only to those that are both interested in and capable of going all the way up. And with the upper tier being more difficult now than it was at the moment Fractals were at the height of popularity (with devs acting in a way that clearly shows it was not an accidental shift in difficulty), well, it is no wonder it is now significantly less popular than it was then.

    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.

  • Vavume.8065Vavume.8065 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2020

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:
    Once a full suite of strike missions is complete there should be a graceful ramp up to the existing raid content rather than the imposing leap that previously existed, and our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.

    I'm sure it will go up somewhat, but I'm also sure most people probably just skip the harder strikes like Boneskinner.

    @Hanakocz.5697 said:
    The main problem with idea of Strikes as a lure for raids is that even if those people get good there step by step, they can't access raids because the "friendly" community there will not allow them because they don't have killproofs.

    This kind of elitism is also present in many strike groups, I try to stay away from elitists, which is pretty difficult these days as raids, strikes and fractals are all plagued with them. The sad thing is probably 90% of those elitists became so because they were given the tools to do so (kill proofs) which then gave them some kind of entitled idea that they are somehow better than other players because they grinded more, despite the fact that KP and skill are not related.

  • AliamRationem.5172AliamRationem.5172 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Katary.7096 said:

    @Super Hayes.6890 said:
    Fact is, the small percent of the player base that raids is not going to get a big population boost from strikes. If you want to bring more players to raid content, especially casuals, you must create an easy, medium and hard difficulty with scaling rewards. This allows the mechanics to be learned on an easier setting which will increase the player pool and close the gap to the higher difficulties. Strikes will not accomplish this.

    According to that logic Fractals of the Mists would have to be really popular in the Guild Wars 2 playerbase, since every fractal has at least four difficulty settings to play it on and the rewards scale up the higher you go. But is FotM really that successful? Why does the game mode not receive more support from the developers if it has a large fan base?

    @wrathmagik.3518 said:
    Or they could just stop trying to be WoW, which is a raid centric mmo. GW2 never had and never will have a big raid community. If you want raiding this isn't the mmo you goto. You goto wow or FF14. Instead of doing what they're good at (pve exploration/puzzles/dynamic events)

    Even in WoW raid content is not that widely played. That is the reason why they created LFR, because not enough people were playing raid content.

    What game mode does receive a lot of support? They release a short story episode and a new map every few months. We don't really get much else aside from a rare new fractal or a skimpy balance update for competitive modes. Even when they promise to focus on a particular game mode (PvP, for instance) they do nothing and then ghost their player base for months on end.

    Fractals seem pretty popular, honestly. The rewards are good and the multiple difficulty modes seem to appeal to a variety of players. I'm not big into GW2 instanced PvE, but I have participated enough in fractals over the years to have reached fractal level 100 and unlocked the infinite mists omnipotion. Meanwhile raids and strikes I have only done a handful of times.

  • AliamRationem.5172AliamRationem.5172 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vavume.8065 said:

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:
    Once a full suite of strike missions is complete there should be a graceful ramp up to the existing raid content rather than the imposing leap that previously existed, and our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.

    I'm sure it will go up somewhat, but I'm also sure most people probably just skip the harder strikes like Boneskinner.

    @Hanakocz.5697 said:
    The main problem with idea of Strikes as a lure for raids is that even if those people get good there step by step, they can't access raids because the "friendly" community there will not allow them because they don't have killproofs.

    This kind of elitism is also present in many strike groups, I try to stay away from elitists, which is pretty difficult these days as raids, strikes and fractals are all plagued with them. The sad thing is probably 90% of those elitists became so because they were given the tools to do so (kill proofs) which then gave them some kind of entitled idea that they are somehow better than other players because they grinded more, despite the fact that KP and skill are not related.

    It seems to me that if you are doing an experienced run you'd want players who are experienced in that content. I've joined training raids before and they spend a ton of time explaining mechanics only to wipe several times practicing the same boss. If you're trying to clear with an experienced group, there's really no room for that. So why wouldn't you ask for proof of experience?

    That doesn't strike me as "elitist" so much as just common sense. If raids were easy enough you can just join LFG the way you usually can for fractals, then I'd agree that it's unnecessary. But that doesn't seem to be the case for raids.

  • Chichimec.9364Chichimec.9364 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blude.6812 said:

    @bOTEB.1573 said:
    I wonder, how were the last 8 months? Did strikes manage to get more people into raids? I just hope that we will see more raids in the near future.

    Nope strikes did not trick me (don't know about others)into trying the elitest raids. No thanks, I hope Anet goes back to their roots.

    Nope, strikes didn't bring me into raids either. In fact it was just the opposite. I tried a couple of the early strikes and didn't like them at all. That set my anti-raid sentiment into concrete. I haven't done any strikes since then and won't bother trying raids.

  • Katary.7096Katary.7096 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Because at some point devs kind of forgot about what different tiers of difficulty are for.

    This statement reads as if it is supposed to answer a question I have raised, but the information within it does not fulfill that purpose. So what am I supposed to do with that?

    Different tiers of difficulty are there so people that like different levels of challenge can all be happy playing the same type of content. Notice, that most of those people are not going to graduate from their chosen difficulty tier to a higher one, and only a small number will want to progress through all the tiers.

    Yes, that is so obvious that it would be reasonable to assume that people are generally aware of it.

    Feeding new players into the highest-tier community is either a secondary goal, or a byproduct. Main goal of multiple difficulty tiers is justification for increased resource usage for that type of content.

    I know, the same principle is behind the introduction of LFR in WoW, which I had already mentioned in the very post you quoted.

    This is not how Fractals work. The lower difficulty tiers are designed as strictly intermediate, transitional type of content.

    Provide supporting evidence.

    Something you pass through in your way up to the top. As such, ultimately they appeal practially only to those that are both interested in and capable of going all the way up.

    Provide supporting evidence.

    And with the upper tier being more difficult now than it was at the moment Fractals were at the height of popularity (with devs acting in a way that clearly shows it was not an accidental shift in difficulty), well, it is no wonder it is now significantly less popular than it was then.

    Which metrics do you use to track the popularity of fractals over time?
    So you reckon that the success of FotM is nothing to write home about. That could certainly explain why the game mode is not seeing much support.

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:
    What game mode does receive a lot of support? They release a short story episode and a new map every few months. We don't really get much else aside from a rare new fractal or a skimpy balance update for competitive modes. Even when they promise to focus on a particular game mode (PvP, for instance) they do nothing and then ghost their player base for months on end.

    Depends on how you approach it. From an absolute point of view every section of the game is lacking support, at least according to player feedback. But relatively speaking they clearly focus on open world and story content. Prior to the Sunqua Peak update the last time they added a new fractal was January 8, 2019, the last time they added a new CM fractal was July 25, 2017.

    Fractals seem pretty popular, honestly. The rewards are good and the multiple difficulty modes seem to appeal to a variety of players. I'm not big into GW2 instanced PvE, but I have participated enough in fractals over the years to have reached fractal level 100 and unlocked the infinite mists omnipotion. Meanwhile raids and strikes I have only done a handful of times.

    Unfortunately that cannot confirm that Fractals are indeed pretty popular. Of course there is the chance that FotM are so immensely well populated, that the devs see no potential gains in increasing support for the game mode. But we simply have no way of knowing.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2020

    @Katary.7096 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Because at some point devs kind of forgot about what different tiers of difficulty are for.

    This statement reads as if it is supposed to answer a question I have raised, but the information within it does not fulfill that purpose. So what am I supposed to do with that?

    It does answer the question, just a bit indirectly. You jsut need to read through the whole post to get that answer.

    Different tiers of difficulty are there so people that like different levels of challenge can all be happy playing the same type of content. Notice, that most of those people are not going to graduate from their chosen difficulty tier to a higher one, and only a small number will want to progress through all the tiers.

    Yes, that is so obvious that it would be reasonable to assume that people are generally aware of it.

    And that's the core of the issue - no, people are not generally aware of it. A lot of people think that different levels of difficulty exist primarily as a form of progression. Which is not the same. While this may utilize the same overall base idea, but those two approaches significantly differ in how the priorities are distributed.

    This is not how Fractals work. The lower difficulty tiers are designed as strictly intermediate, transitional type of content.

    Provide supporting evidence.

    Something you pass through in your way up to the top. As such, ultimately they appeal practially only to those that are both interested in and capable of going all the way up.

    Provide supporting evidence.

    The whole system is clearly designed as a progression mechanic. Agony/agony resistance, unlocking higher fractal levels, rewards from different tiers stacking instead of replacing each other, most of the unique rewards locked behind the highest tier (as well as Anet constantly forgetting about properly scaling lower difficulty tiers anytime they release a new fractal) - all those clearly point to the idea that, instead of picking a difficulty you want and sticking with it, you are meant to start at the bottom and progress to the top. We also got several dev statements to that end, both at the very beginning of fractals, or later on (the one that called Fractals a stepping stone to Raids was especially telling), but in reality we don't even need those to understand the general design and purpose of this system.

    So, my answer is that Fractals having several tiers of difficulty doesn't help all that much in their popularity, because they used those tiers not as a means of separating and satisfying people that like different difficulty levels (where all the levels would get the same amount of love and effort), but as a means of progression, with most of the effort concentrated on the very top.

    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.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2020

    @Chichimec.9364 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:

    @bOTEB.1573 said:
    I wonder, how were the last 8 months? Did strikes manage to get more people into raids? I just hope that we will see more raids in the near future.

    Nope strikes did not trick me (don't know about others)into trying the elitest raids. No thanks, I hope Anet goes back to their roots.

    Nope, strikes didn't bring me into raids either. In fact it was just the opposite. I tried a couple of the early strikes and didn't like them at all. That set my anti-raid sentiment into concrete. I haven't done any strikes since then and won't bother trying raids.

    »Strikes will never put me into raids as well... i do content that i like and has the items i need, raids are just visual clutter rewards nothing more.

    Maybe Anet should intruce the equivalent for green items from GW1 into the game where bosses could drop specific weapons and amors or other items to use in builds by the traditional style, where that weapon has a unique skin, unique damage type, unique sigil effect, or rune in case being armor, since there nothing unique to raids, besides confeties its labeled as useless content w/o any real drop nor reward.

    Gw2 feel very imcomplete for me in quite some areas, gw2 sometimes fieel like a fake game that enforces skins to hide its lack of mechanics gamewide(this is personal opnion of what i sometimes feel whilke playing the game).

    Mr. @Fire Attunement.9835
    This is atm what lacks in pve....
    https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Unique_item

    it would make the game feel more GW.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

  • Tyncale.1629Tyncale.1629 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2020

    I think they missed the mark with Strike Missions too. I hate them with a vengeance. The problem is that some (most?)Strike Missions actually need the level of tutorship, handholding and leadership(and Teamspeak) that certain Gaming communities or Guilds would do with Triple Trouble. With Strike Missions, it's either Guilds who have mastered them, or a pick up squad with a high chance of Failure and subsequent Frustration with the people that try them. I read up on Strike Missions beforehand but if there are only a few who do not know what they are doing it is most likely a fail.

    I agree with above posters that there should be Scaling in Strike missions, in that each scale adds an extra mechanic. Instead of having to cope with 3-5 mechanics all at once. Or we should get those Community Gaming collectives back who are willing to do these Strike Missions with teamspeak or something. I am convinced that Anet did not see increased numbers for Raids since Strike Missions were introduced. If I am wrong, give me the numbers.

    I also think GW2 does not really attract a crowd that is willing to go that extra mile for Raids. I have raided two years in Everquest on high level and it was fun, but I do not want that anymore. And in Everquest raids actually gave Loot that mattered. :) How many people want to go through all that hassle for Legendary Armor that has the same stats? Anet, stick to your roots, the no-power creep adagio works fine. Just not for interesting people in Raids.

    Btw, the best way to attract more people to Raids is to introduce Mythic Armor, which has 10% better stats then Ascended. I do not want to be near the explosion when that hits the Forums though. Just writing this, I can feel the heat. :)

  • Katary.7096Katary.7096 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It does answer the question, just a bit indirectly. You jsut need to read through the whole post to get that answer.

    Yes, since you decided to put the relevant part into the second half of the last sentence of your post. Which can effectively be summarized as "Fractals are not that popular anymore." The rest of your post is essentially a bird's eye view of your opinion on the topic of difficulty settings. Which is fine, but if you are going to make a general explanation for something, do not do so via quotation as that implies that you mean to directly address something specific.

    And that's the core of the issue - no, people are not generally aware of it. A lot of people think that different levels of difficulty exist primarily as a form of progression. Which is not the same. While this may utilize the same overall base idea, but those two approaches significantly differ in how the priorities are distributed.

    Did I miss the part where someone made the claim that both of these approaches are the same?
    Personally I do not buy it when people state that they want to see multiple difficulties because it would make for a natural progression. The idea that they pick up a new game and start their first playthrough on easy, then go through it a second time on normal, followed by a third time on hard is simply not realistic. And with steam's statistics on achievement unlocks it is pretty easy to find data to support that position.

    The whole system is clearly designed as a progression mechanic. Agony/agony resistance, unlocking higher fractal levels, rewards from different tiers stacking instead of replacing each other, most of the unique rewards locked behind the highest tier (as well as Anet constantly forgetting about properly scaling lower difficulty tiers anytime they release a new fractal) - all those clearly point to the idea that, instead of picking a difficulty you want and sticking with it, you are meant to start at the bottom and progress to the top.

    Yes, that is a logically sound explanation as to why it makes sense that they would have designed it this way. But here's the problem: If someone could prove that there exists a decently sized group of players who play fractal content somewhat frequently and do so exclusively on tier two, your explanation means nothing. The developers may very well design any element in the game with a particular intention, that alone does not guarantee its outcome though.

    We also got several dev statements to that end, both at the very beginning of fractals, or later on (the one that called Fractals a stepping stone to Raids was especially telling), but in reality we don't even need those to understand the general design and purpose of this system.

    Can you provide the source for the "Fractals are a stepping stone to Raids" statement? Would be quite contradictory to their stated reasoning for creating strike missions.

    So, my answer is that Fractals having several tiers of difficulty doesn't help all that much in their popularity, because they used those tiers not as a means of separating and satisfying people that like different difficulty levels (where all the levels would get the same amount of love and effort), but as a means of progression, with most of the effort concentrated on the very top.

    I see.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 26, 2020

    @Katary.7096 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    And that's the core of the issue - no, people are not generally aware of it. A lot of people think that different levels of difficulty exist primarily as a form of progression. Which is not the same. While this may utilize the same overall base idea, but those two approaches significantly differ in how the priorities are distributed.

    Did I miss the part where someone made the claim that both of these approaches are the same?
    Personally I do not buy it when people state that they want to see multiple difficulties because it would make for a natural progression. The idea that they pick up a new game and start their first playthrough on easy, then go through it a second time on normal, followed by a third time on hard is simply not realistic. And with steam's statistics on achievement unlocks it is pretty easy to find data to support that position.

    I'm not talking about other games. I am talking about this one. Just look at the cases where whenever easy mode is mentioned the silent assumption by most is that the only reason to have it is for easy mode be some sort of a training content that people are meant to graduate from (and thus no need for rewards and stuff). When in reality this should be at best a secondary concern.

    The whole system is clearly designed as a progression mechanic. Agony/agony resistance, unlocking higher fractal levels, rewards from different tiers stacking instead of replacing each other, most of the unique rewards locked behind the highest tier (as well as Anet constantly forgetting about properly scaling lower difficulty tiers anytime they release a new fractal) - all those clearly point to the idea that, instead of picking a difficulty you want and sticking with it, you are meant to start at the bottom and progress to the top.

    Yes, that is a logically sound explanation as to why it makes sense that they would have designed it this way. But here's the problem: If someone could prove that there exists a decently sized group of players who play fractal content somewhat frequently and do so exclusively on tier two, your explanation means nothing. The developers may very well design any element in the game with a particular intention, that alone does not guarantee its outcome though.

    The original intention behind content does influence how people are going to be using it, but does not completely prevent some people to try to use it in ways that were not part of the original design. Still, those would be the exception, not the norm.

    We also got several dev statements to that end, both at the very beginning of fractals, or later on (the one that called Fractals a stepping stone to Raids was especially telling), but in reality we don't even need those to understand the general design and purpose of this system.

    Can you provide the source for the "Fractals are a stepping stone to Raids" statement? Would be quite contradictory to their stated reasoning for creating strike missions.

    Can't find it anymore. It was somewhere shortly after HoT release, during the height of Raid hype (probably in one of the reddit AMAs then, but it's been so long that i can't be 100% certain about it - might have been the previous forums too). And it's not contradictory - quite the opposite, it's a sign that their thoughts are still influenced by progression ideas, even if they are designing for a mostly non-progression game. In those years they might have moved with this idea from one of the content types to another, but they still cling to the idea of "stepping stones" and still seem to think that this time it might work better.
    (or they no longer think so, and it's just a PR speak meant to placate the raiders and give them some hope - that possibility also exists)

    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.

  • keenedge.9675keenedge.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

    Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @keenedge.9675 said:
    Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

    How many times?
    If its less then 10 is it worth the investment?
    I mean raids are done weekly so a lot of play time for some players if you look to the investment from the company a story mode would not be as good a investment of their limited resources would it?

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    casual raids are the same as SUVs. products that are made as compromises, and dont really have a purpose of their own.
    and turning casuals into raiders is almost as hard, as learning your goldfish how to sing.
    pretty sure there are lower hanging fruits to pick, but what do i know...

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2020

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @keenedge.9675 said:
    Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

    How many times?
    If its less then 10 is it worth the investment?
    I mean raids are done weekly so a lot of play time for some players if you look to the investment from the company a story mode would not be as good a investment of their limited resources would it?

    That's exactly why easy mode should not be looked at in the context of "progression play". The main reason for multiple modes is to make more people interested in the content. In any mode of that content. It should not be vieved just as a way to get people to play the highest difficulty tier - most people interested in th easy mode want that because they don't intend to go up from there.
    Just like many raiders that were completely fine with difficulty up to (and inclding) wing 4 never went past it to a much harder wing 5.

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    casual raids are the same as SUVs. products that are made as compromises, and dont really have a purpose of their own.

    Which is why SUVs are so unpopular and failed product
    ...oh wait.

    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.

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @keenedge.9675 said:
    Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

    How many times?
    If its less then 10 is it worth the investment?
    I mean raids are done weekly so a lot of play time for some players if you look to the investment from the company a story mode would not be as good a investment of their limited resources would it?

    That's exactly why easy mode should not be looked at in the context of "progression play". The main reason for multiple modes is to make more people interested in the content. In any mode of that content. It should not be vieved just as a way to get people to play the highest difficulty tier - most people interested in th easy mode want that because they don't intend to go up from there.
    Just like many raiders that were completely fine with difficulty up to (and inclding) wing 4 never went past it to a much harder wing 5.

    I don't think your reply has much to do with what they said. They aren't talking about progression. They are talking about replayability.

    How replayable would story or easy mode be is the question.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2020

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:
    I don't think your reply has much to do with what they said. They aren't talking about progression. They are talking about replayability.

    How replayable would story or easy mode be is the question.

    I guess i cut my reply too short, probably because i thought i have already explained what i meant in my earlier posts in this thread.

    Easy mode without rewards is a progression thinking. It's considering the easy mode to be something you play for a while, and "graduate" to a "proper" mode. No rewards are proposed exactly to force this kind of behaviour - to not keep people in this mode for long, and to make them want to move on to a mode with rewards.

    If you want to treat easy mode as a full mode on its own, not just as some kind of "stairs" to higher difficulty, then obviously it needs to have rewards, and those rewards need to be good enough to make people stay there.

    So, I wasn't disagreeing with @Linken.6345. Quite the opposite - i was agreeing with him, that easy mode with no rewards is a bad idea.

    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.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @keenedge.9675 said:
    Even if a Raid in 'STORY MODE' gave less rewards and zero LI, I'd still be much more likely to give it a try. The people who don't want to waste 2 hours if it failed would not be there demanding so much from casual players.

    How many times?
    If its less then 10 is it worth the investment?
    I mean raids are done weekly so a lot of play time for some players if you look to the investment from the company a story mode would not be as good a investment of their limited resources would it?

    That's exactly why easy mode should not be looked at in the context of "progression play". The main reason for multiple modes is to make more people interested in the content. In any mode of that content. It should not be vieved just as a way to get people to play the highest difficulty tier - most people interested in th easy mode want that because they don't intend to go up from there.
    Just like many raiders that were completely fine with difficulty up to (and inclding) wing 4 never went past it to a much harder wing 5.

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    casual raids are the same as SUVs. products that are made as compromises, and dont really have a purpose of their own.

    Which is why SUVs are so unpopular and failed product
    ...oh wait.

    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

  • Or they could just stop trying to be WoW, which is a raid centric mmo. GW2 never had and never will have a big raid community. If you want raiding this isn't the mmo you goto. You goto wow or FF14. Instead of doing what they're good at (pve exploration/puzzles/dynamic events)

    Problem with that is that GW2 combat is just way more fun, and they have made some really good raids in this game. I want more of that content in GW2, because neither WoW nor FFXIV is gonna give me that same experience. GW2 could have a raiding community, if only ANet would support the content properly. Telling people to just go away isn't a solution.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2020

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    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.

  • Katary.7096Katary.7096 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'm not talking about other games. I am talking about this one. Just look at the cases where whenever easy mode is mentioned the silent assumption by most is that the only reason to have it is for easy mode be some sort of a training content that people are meant to graduate from (and thus no need for rewards and stuff). When in reality this should be at best a secondary concern.

    Yes, of course we are talking about Guild Wars 2. The reason why I brought up video games in general is simply that the idea that people start a new game with the easiest mode and then progress higher until they finished the hardest one is an outlier. Therefore I do not believe that someone who makes that very same argument in favor of raids in gw2 is representative of the majority. In fact, I would go as far as saying that most people who express that exact opinion are not being entirely honest. Since the principle itself is not really popular in the genre of video games as a whole. Why should it be drastically different in the specific case of gw2?
    I think I do not see it the same way you do. In my experience every time "easy mode" for raids is mentioned you are going to have someone make the argument that it would be beneficial because it allows for players to gradually progress from learning easy versions of the encounters up to the actual raid difficulty. Which will inevitably be disputed by another poster, who explains that it will not work that way. Nothing silent about it. And unless you possess the ability to look into the mind of every single forum poster you cannot know what the majority assumes about the subject.

    The original intention behind content does influence how people are going to be using it, but does not completely prevent some people to try to use it in ways that were not part of the original design. Still, those would be the exception, not the norm.

    Depends on your definition of the "norm" and the "exception". A system can be designed to lead to result "X", while also allowing for the possiblity of "Y" instead. If 87% of all results were "Y", should it not be considered the norm?

    Can't find it anymore. It was somewhere shortly after HoT release, during the height of Raid hype (probably in one of the reddit AMAs then, but it's been so long that i can't be 100% certain about it - might have been the previous forums too). And it's not contradictory - quite the opposite, it's a sign that their thoughts are still influenced by progression ideas, even if they are designing for a mostly non-progression game. In those years they might have moved with this idea from one of the content types to another, but they still cling to the idea of "stepping stones" and still seem to think that this time it might work better.
    (or they no longer think so, and it's just a PR speak meant to placate the raiders and give them some hope - that possibility also exists)

    That is a shame, but I am not saying that I do not believe that they said it, it would simply be nice to have access to the source. There cleary is a contradiction, from the OP: "[...]Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.
    Our intention was for Strike Missions to be that intermediary step into 10-person content. As we've mentioned before and you've likely noticed, strike missions are getting harder. Once a full suite of strike missions is complete there should be a graceful ramp up to the existing raid content rather than the imposing leap that previously existed, and our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.[...]"
    That is not the reason that you state for creating strike missions, if you believe that FotM is the stepping stone content for raids. Unless of course, they identified the number of players in the group as the primary issue, obviously fractals fall short in that regard. Though, with the fractals statement being as old as you claim it is, the most likely explanation is probably that they changed their mind. That, or the PR talk.

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

    @Katary.7096 said:
    Yes, of course we are talking about Guild Wars 2. The reason why I brought up video games in general is simply that the idea that people start a new game with the easiest mode and then progress higher until they finished the hardest one is an outlier.

    In single player games, surely. In MMORPGs however that is a norm - in fact, most MMORPGs are specifically built around the progression mechanics, where you start with easier content, get geared up there, use the gear to attack higher content, to get new gear tier, and so on, and so on until the top. Progression through tiers is the assumed norm, not the exception here.

    Therefore I do not believe that someone who makes that very same argument in favor of raids in gw2 is representative of the majority. In fact, I would go as far as saying that most people who express that exact opinion are not being entirely honest. Since the principle itself is not really popular in the genre of video games as a whole. Why should it be drastically different in the specific case of gw2?

    Because GW2 is not a single player game, but MMORPG, and in MMORPGs the default approach to tiers is markedly different. Even if it doesn't work all that well for GW2 specifically (due to not having gear progression).

    I think I do not see it the same way you do. In my experience every time "easy mode" for raids is mentioned you are going to have someone make the argument that it would be beneficial because it allows for players to gradually progress from learning easy versions of the encounters up to the actual raid difficulty. Which will inevitably be disputed by another poster, who explains that it will not work that way.

    That another poster usually is either me, or one of the raiders saying that easy mode is not needed at all, because raids do not need "easy". The progression through tiers (and the assumption that, as thus, easy tier should have no rewards) however is a very common proposition coming from many sources. And all that comes exactly from thinking in terms of progression, not in terms of expanding the overall raid population.

    Nothing silent about it. And unless you possess the ability to look into the mind of every single forum poster you cannot know what the majority assumes about the subject.

    True. I can only observe what the trends are among those that do post. And i am speaking about those trends.

    The original intention behind content does influence how people are going to be using it, but does not completely prevent some people to try to use it in ways that were not part of the original design. Still, those would be the exception, not the norm.

    Depends on your definition of the "norm" and the "exception". A system can be designed to lead to result "X", while also allowing for the possiblity of "Y" instead. If 87% of all results were "Y", should it not be considered the norm?

    Yes, it should. And the norm that i see is people considering tiers as part of progression.

    Can't find it anymore. It was somewhere shortly after HoT release, during the height of Raid hype (probably in one of the reddit AMAs then, but it's been so long that i can't be 100% certain about it - might have been the previous forums too). And it's not contradictory - quite the opposite, it's a sign that their thoughts are still influenced by progression ideas, even if they are designing for a mostly non-progression game. In those years they might have moved with this idea from one of the content types to another, but they still cling to the idea of "stepping stones" and still seem to think that this time it might work better.
    (or they no longer think so, and it's just a PR speak meant to placate the raiders and give them some hope - that possibility also exists)

    That is a shame, but I am not saying that I do not believe that they said it, it would simply be nice to have access to the source. There cleary is a contradiction, from the OP: "[...]Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.
    Our intention was for Strike Missions to be that intermediary step into 10-person content. As we've mentioned before and you've likely noticed, strike missions are getting harder. Once a full suite of strike missions is complete there should be a graceful ramp up to the existing raid content rather than the imposing leap that previously existed, and our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.[...]"
    That is not the reason that you state for creating strike missions, if you believe that FotM is the stepping stone content for raids.

    No, i believe they considered FotM to be a stepping stone to raids shortly after release of first raid wings. That was several years ago, and evidently failed. Problem is, that, from what i see, Anet thinks the failure was from FotM being the stepping stone, not from the stepping stone idea itself. So, now they try to replace the stones, without noticing that the idea is a failure, because those that wanted to go up were always able to do so, and those that didn't are those that are simply not interested in what's up there (in terms of difficulty at least).

    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.

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2020

    Dungeons, Raids and Strike Missions should've just been merged into Fractals a long time ago because Fractals already prefected everything players need to deal with varying difficulty levels, reward tiers, gear progression, LFG tactics, casual vs elite, etc.

    Trying to re-invent the wheel over and over isn't working. You already figured it out.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay, NA | 22 charas, 16k hours, 28k AP | ♀♥♀
    Mains Mariyuuna/Auramancer(PvE) & Terakura/Healbreaker(WvW) aka Henge of Denravi Silver Invader [SUKI]
    No need to be best, only good and kind.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    some of my family members bought them too, nothing but trouble and disappointment. even from the expensive brands.
    they would constantly break down or get stuck. they are overpriced toys, nothing more.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This is not how Fractals work.

    Unless you choose, yourself or your group of friends, for fractals to work that way. I have one group of guildies and friends that enjoy fractals primarily at low tiers. Group content with a bit more group play to it than the open world. They, we, have fun in tiers where people feel challenged without feeling overwhelmed. It also is great for people who want to play around with alternate builds and characters with which they are less skilled and for which they do not wish to invest in ascended gear. There is no drive, no force pushing people, to higher tiers. Play whatever challenge tier you wish.

    The lower difficulty tiers are designed as strictly intermediate, transitional type of content. Something you pass through in your way up to the top. As such, ultimately they appeal practially only to those that are both interested in and capable of going all the way up.

    I disagree. Sure it can, and does appeal to people looking for the top tier of challenge but lower tiers are only transitional content if you choose to make them so.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    some of my family members bought them too, nothing but trouble and disappointment. even from the expensive brands.
    they would constantly break down or get stuck. they are overpriced toys, nothing more.

    Had my Trailblazer for years. Friends asked for help moving, took the kids to Disneyland, moving items from one place of business to another, so many other uses that I would not have been able to manage with a car or pick-up truck, all in comfort. Never had a significant problem with it. Getting stuck? I guess that taking any vehicle where it is either not meant to be, or where the driver lacks the skill to handle it, will get it stuck. I would argue that judging the entire class of vehicle by the issues experienced by a few family members is unwise. It is highly unlikely that they would continue to sell as well as they do if the entire class was garbage.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    some of my family members bought them too, nothing but trouble and disappointment. even from the expensive brands.
    they would constantly break down or get stuck. they are overpriced toys, nothing more.

    Had my Trailblazer for years. Friends asked for help moving, took the kids to Disneyland, moving items from one place of business to another, so many other uses that I would not have been able to manage with a car or pick-up truck, all in comfort. Never had a significant problem with it. Getting stuck? I guess that taking any vehicle where it is either not meant to be, or where the driver lacks the skill to handle it, will get it stuck. I would argue that judging the entire class of vehicle by the issues experienced by a few family members is unwise. It is highly unlikely that they would continue to sell as well as they do if the entire class was garbage.

    a really good car will last for decades, not years. and i have actually seen a small citroen pulling a big suv through snow drifts.
    seeing how well the civil version of the humvee sold, i wouldnt count on the quality asessment of many customers either.
    yes, driver skill is a factor too, but i have simply seen too many of them getting stuck, where normal cars could get through

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

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    some of my family members bought them too, nothing but trouble and disappointment. even from the expensive brands.
    they would constantly break down or get stuck. they are overpriced toys, nothing more.

    Had my Trailblazer for years. Friends asked for help moving, took the kids to Disneyland, moving items from one place of business to another, so many other uses that I would not have been able to manage with a car or pick-up truck, all in comfort. Never had a significant problem with it. Getting stuck? I guess that taking any vehicle where it is either not meant to be, or where the driver lacks the skill to handle it, will get it stuck. I would argue that judging the entire class of vehicle by the issues experienced by a few family members is unwise. It is highly unlikely that they would continue to sell as well as they do if the entire class was garbage.

    a really good car will last for decades, not years. and i have actually seen a small citroen pulling a big suv through snow drifts.
    seeing how well the civil version of the humvee sold, i wouldnt count on the quality asessment of many customers either.
    yes, driver skill is a factor too, but i have simply seen too many of them getting stuck, where normal cars could get through

    Notice, how qualities of different car types (or perceived qualities, because the anectodat evidence is not worth much) have absolutely no bearing in this case. We weren't talking about content quality, but about content desirability and popularity. And in this case there's no debate - SUVs are extremely popular.

    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.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    you would have a much better car, if you chose anything else. they are expensive to drive, have poor handling and safety,
    they are slower and practically useless off road. and yes, they are on the way out. fewer of them every year. this is a good thing .

    First, you might want to check the info. The growth of their market share is indeed slowing, but it's still very much positive. And the reason why it is even slowing is a simple case of market saturation - it's not that less people want SUVs. It's that most people that want them already have one.

    Second, the qualities you debate (which btw are debatable) are irrelevant in this context. Those things don't change the fact that SUVs are what consumers want, and that they sell really well. So it is with "casual raids". Them being worse than higher difficulty raids at being higher difficulty raids would not really matter - what would matter would be their popularity. And if you compare that to SUVs... well, those are very popular. Even if you personally happen to think they are for some reason worse as cars that some other car types (although i am not sure to what car type are you comparing them to, seeing as you mention both off-road usefulness and speed in the same breath)

    some of my family members bought them too, nothing but trouble and disappointment. even from the expensive brands.
    they would constantly break down or get stuck. they are overpriced toys, nothing more.

    Had my Trailblazer for years. Friends asked for help moving, took the kids to Disneyland, moving items from one place of business to another, so many other uses that I would not have been able to manage with a car or pick-up truck, all in comfort. Never had a significant problem with it. Getting stuck? I guess that taking any vehicle where it is either not meant to be, or where the driver lacks the skill to handle it, will get it stuck. I would argue that judging the entire class of vehicle by the issues experienced by a few family members is unwise. It is highly unlikely that they would continue to sell as well as they do if the entire class was garbage.

    a really good car will last for decades, not years. and i have actually seen a small citroen pulling a big suv through snow drifts.
    seeing how well the civil version of the humvee sold, i wouldnt count on the quality asessment of many customers either.
    yes, driver skill is a factor too, but i have simply seen too many of them getting stuck, where normal cars could get through

    Notice, how qualities of different car types (or perceived qualities, because the anectodat evidence is not worth much) have absolutely no bearing in this case. We weren't talking about content quality, but about content desirability and popularity. And in this case there's no debate - SUVs are extremely popular.

    maybe in your country, but certainly not in the rest of the world. in my country its around 1 of 20 cars. im seeing more vintage cars, than suvs here.
    maybe because of the bad weather we have, lots of rain and a pretty cold winter. we dont have many minis either, for the same reason.
    they are practically useless, when there is a certain amount of of snow.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2020

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    maybe in your country, but certainly not in the rest of the world. in my country its around 1 of 20 cars. im seeing more vintage cars, than suvs here.
    maybe because of the bad weather we have, lots of rain and a pretty cold winter. we dont have many minis either, for the same reason.
    they are practically useless, when there is a certain amount of of snow.

    Then either your country is some kind of an exception, or you are basing your information on personal observation, and not on statistical data.
    (in short, SUVs are extremely popular all over the world, and you can easily confirm it - statistical data for it is easily available. Go ahead and look)

    And with this i am ending my participation in the "car derail" in this thread.

    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.

  • Johnny.1634Johnny.1634 Member ✭✭✭

    Do you plan on fixing any bugs that have been in the game since launch?

    8+ Years of Ranger Pets having Bugged Attack Animations, unaffected by Quickness and Disjointing attacks.
    Help this finally get fixed
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/569/pets-not-affected-by-quickness#latest

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Katary.7096 said:
    Yes, of course we are talking about Guild Wars 2. The reason why I brought up video games in general is simply that the idea that people start a new game with the easiest mode and then progress higher until they finished the hardest one is an outlier.

    In single player games, surely. In MMORPGs however that is a norm - in fact, most MMORPGs are specifically built around the progression mechanics, where you start with easier content, get geared up there, use the gear to attack higher content, to get new gear tier, and so on, and so on until the top. Progression through tiers is the assumed norm, not the exception here.

    I am very happy that GW2 did not follow the norm with this and intentionally did not implement that kind of gear-treadmill.
    That was one of the reasons I switched to GW2 from other MMORPGs years ago.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Katary.7096Katary.7096 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    In single player games, surely. In MMORPGs however that is a norm - in fact, most MMORPGs are specifically built around the progression mechanics, where you start with easier content, get geared up there, use the gear to attack higher content, to get new gear tier, and so on, and so on until the top. Progression through tiers is the assumed norm, not the exception here.

    Hold on for a moment, it was you who said that you are not talking about other games, you are talking about this one. Guild Wars 2 does not feature the level and gear progression systems that are commonly found in other MMORPGs.

    Because GW2 is not a single player game, but MMORPG, and in MMORPGs the default approach to tiers is markedly different. Even if it doesn't work all that well for GW2 specifically (due to not having gear progression).

    Given the direction which the ongoing development of the game took, I would argue that it is fair to describe gw2 as a single player MMORPG.

    That another poster usually is either me, or one of the raiders saying that easy mode is not needed at all, because raids do not need "easy". The progression through tiers (and the assumption that, as thus, easy tier should have no rewards) however is a very common proposition coming from many sources. And all that comes exactly from thinking in terms of progression, not in terms of expanding the overall raid population.

    I can think of another explanation why people would want to see easy difficulties to come without rewards.

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

    @Katary.7096 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    In single player games, surely. In MMORPGs however that is a norm - in fact, most MMORPGs are specifically built around the progression mechanics, where you start with easier content, get geared up there, use the gear to attack higher content, to get new gear tier, and so on, and so on until the top. Progression through tiers is the assumed norm, not the exception here.

    Hold on for a moment, it was you who said that you are not talking about other games, you are talking about this one. Guild Wars 2 does not feature the level and gear progression systems that are commonly found in other MMORPGs.

    Sure. But it features players that are used to expectations they carried over from other MMORPGs.
    In general, players do not carry over gameplay expectations between different types of games, but they do tend to carry them over from one game to another within the same category. This is such a case.

    That another poster usually is either me, or one of the raiders saying that easy mode is not needed at all, because raids do not need "easy". The progression through tiers (and the assumption that, as thus, easy tier should have no rewards) however is a very common proposition coming from many sources. And all that comes exactly from thinking in terms of progression, not in terms of expanding the overall raid population.

    I can think of another explanation why people would want to see easy difficulties to come without rewards.

    Well, yeah, some suggest that, because they do not want easy mode to succeed.

    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.