Raids difficulty scaling. — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Raids difficulty scaling.

Hello guys. Before strike missions got released I actually liked the idea of it. However, when it got released I quickly lost interest to it because of the rewards etc, it left me wondering "Why dont they just add scaling to raids?" Like in other mmorpgs there is scaling to raids, kinda like with fractals in gw2, t1, t2, t3, t4 and cms. Wouldnt it be cool with scaling in raids too? 5 lvls of difficulty with different tiers of rewards. This way everyone can get into raids and eventually raids will be much more populated.

Comments

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

    You should use the search function to find all the other topics around this as this has been discussed to death and at this point there isn't much more to add to the discussion.

    You will find pretty much every answer to your questions and their follow up questions and answers.

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 9, 2020

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Raids don't have to be abandoned - or dead - but taking the limited resources available and using them on Strike Missions in the hope that they would create the bridge to raiding is very shortsighted. Those are the very resources that should have been used to create raid difficulty tiers, which in turn would bring more people into raids (or, alternatively, move the raid team to developing hard mode versions of the strike missions - which I think would be a much better path moving forward - hard core strikes seem more sustainable and could offer the hardcore content desired by many). Even if the people coming into easy modes never stepped foot into the harder versions, it would have created a larger audience for the mode, justifying continued investment.

    I also agree with your point about lesser reward for easy mode - that is just common sense.

    The point is, raids as they are now are unsustainable - and strike missions in their current form will do absolutely nothing to change that. They don't have the population to justify healthy development (they have more or less admitted this in the recent dev blog). Move the resources from strike missions to easy mode development (or, even better, vice versa) and you just might - even if people never advance past the easier mode. That is pretty much the only way you will ever get enough people into the game mode to justify real developer attention (whether it be on raids or on strikes - they should pick one and then focus there - using difficulty tiers to keep the population high enough to justify dev time).

  • borgs.6103borgs.6103 Member ✭✭✭

    It's not the difficulty of raids that's the problem - it's the time spent doing it. As we all know, majority of GW2 players are the most casuals of casuals - who mostly only play for a few hours a week and thus would not have enough time to learn and be better playing the game. A player that wants to play a relaxing 2 hours of Guild Wars 2 would probably spend those hours doing their dailies, some world bosses, home instance gathering, and playing barbie with their characters.

    Check out the fable of the Boiling Frog.

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

    Right now I'll be more interested in some scaling for Strike Missions, the Grothmar one specifically is such a joke that puzzles me why it was added as a "bridge" to Raids, while at best it's a "bridge" for the first instance of Heart of Thorns. Or maybe a bridge for Ascalonian Catacombs.

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    Move the resources from strike missions to easy mode development

    Right, so spend resources and time creating content that very few will actually play. Strike Missions, if nothing else, prove how many players will be interested in an easier mode for Raids. The easier strikes of course, not the Boneskinner. A player that still doesn't play the Grothmar Strike will never get into an easy Raid, that's like the bottom of the barrel, and the maximum number of players that will join instanced content.

    At the very least the later Strikes are more exciting content, maybe not a true replacement for Raids, but at least it's content that has some sound mechanics and is not boring to play. Now I'd agree with you, if all Strikes were like the Grothmar one, then yes they'd better spend their time creating an easy mode for Raids instead. But Strikes have improved and changed considerably which gives hope for their future.

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

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Actually, he does have a point, as the "proper balancing of rewards" was something both sides of the discussion never could agree upon. It practically always funnily ended up as raiders making sure easy mode won't be rewarding enough to make people interested in it, or make it stand on its own. In fact, it was quite common to mention that "easy mode is okay, as long as there will be no rewards". Which obviously had a tendency of killing any sort of reasonable discussion on the issue.

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

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

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Actually, he does have a point, as the "proper balancing of rewards" was something both sides of the discussion never could agree upon. It practically always funnily ended up as raiders making sure easy mode won't be rewarding enough to make people interested in it, or make it stand on its own. In fact, it was quite common to mention that "easy mode is okay, as long as there will be no rewards". Which obviously had a tendency of killing any sort of reasonable discussion on the issue.

    Yes because the alternative of "Give the same rewards only have them take longer to acquire" was so much better and was a good basis for any sort of reasonable discussion.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Actually, he does have a point, as the "proper balancing of rewards" was something both sides of the discussion never could agree upon. It practically always funnily ended up as raiders making sure easy mode won't be rewarding enough to make people interested in it, or make it stand on its own. In fact, it was quite common to mention that "easy mode is okay, as long as there will be no rewards". Which obviously had a tendency of killing any sort of reasonable discussion on the issue.

    Yes because the alternative of "Give the same rewards only have them take longer to acquire" was so much better and was a good basis for any sort of reasonable discussion.

    Well, yeah, it is way better than intentionally setting up a mode to fail by making sure noone playing it will get rewarded enough to even think about playing it more than once.

    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.

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Actually, he does have a point, as the "proper balancing of rewards" was something both sides of the discussion never could agree upon. It practically always funnily ended up as raiders making sure easy mode won't be rewarding enough to make people interested in it, or make it stand on its own. In fact, it was quite common to mention that "easy mode is okay, as long as there will be no rewards". Which obviously had a tendency of killing any sort of reasonable discussion on the issue.

    Yes because the alternative of "Give the same rewards only have them take longer to acquire" was so much better and was a good basis for any sort of reasonable discussion.

    Well, yeah, it is way better than intentionally setting up a mode to fail by making sure noone playing it will get rewarded enough to even think about playing it more than once.

    Tbh there were enough valid and well-thought reward ideas from both sides but while there were only few hardcore voices that blubbered "no, you can't have any access at all" the majority of the casual side was almost never satisfied with any suggestions and most often turned out to just have an easier access to raid rewards and that would totally foil normal mode reward balance.
    I don't want to go back to the discussion, it's pointless anyways, but the actual reward of a common raid boss is mediocre at best so easy mode rewards have to be way below that.
    Atm. I would prefer them developing easy modes because that would mean they stop designing those terrible strikes which not only miss to achieve the verbalized goal but are also cheap side content to please the remaining crowd that plays instanced content. All those bosses could have been interesting raid bosses, in a wing, with a lore and easy, normal + cm mode. The current situation is garbage at best.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭

    It looks like there are definitely points most of us agree on. The "zero reward" for easy mode argument we saw in previous threads was obviously a non-starter and trollish, but so were the arguments that all modes should reward the same. Obviously, extra effort deserves extra reward.

    The most cogent argument against easy mode was the lack of developer resources - which is - at least partially - a moot point now that we have strike missions.

    They need to pick one or the other - either raids or strikes - and abandon the other in favor of multiple difficulty modes. My vote would be for strikes simply because I think they would be able to get them out at a faster pace - and, if they dedicated current raiding resources to them, should look more like proper raid fights than what we have now. That said, I can see an argument for raids instead. They are more detailed.

    As an aside - taking this path would allow them to integrate the hardcore experience better with the story and the rest of the game - possibly to the point where they might eventually extend hard mode development (again, with enhanced reward) to the actual story steps themselves. Scaleable content isn't just about making things easier - it should enrich almost every aspect of the game for everyone - bringing both more accessible AND more difficult content to the game at a faster pace. That is the goal here.

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

    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    As a matter of fact, from a game health perspective when factoring for rewards and longevity, that might be better.

    If you started handing out raid reward level rewards, and let's be clear, raid rewards are "poor" for raiders since they reward mostly ascended gear, which most veteran raiders have tons of and which can not be turned into gold/resources at an effective rate.

    If you started handing out ascended gear to every player who simply stepped inside an "easy raid", the entire games balance and economy goes out the window. So yes, from that angle, it might be better to not have any of both. That's also the reason why Strikes have such "poor" loot. Imagine if the current strike missions had the same chance to hand out ascended to the entire player base as raids. You'd bomb the entire economy.

  • Blaeys.3102Blaeys.3102 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    As a matter of fact, from a game health perspective when factoring for rewards and longevity, that might be better.

    If you started handing out raid reward level rewards, and let's be clear, raid rewards are "poor" for raiders since they reward mostly ascended gear, which most veteran raiders have tons of and which can not be turned into gold/resources at an effective rate.

    If you started handing out ascended gear to every player who simply stepped inside an "easy raid", the entire games balance and economy goes out the window. So yes, from that angle, it might be better to not have any of both. That's also the reason why Strikes have such "poor" loot. Imagine if the current strike missions had the same chance to hand out ascended to the entire player base as raids. You'd bomb the entire economy.

    You bring up a good point here.

    As it pertains to rewards, here are my thoughts

    • first, the unique skins (weapons, minis and legendary armor) and titles from raid bosses should always be locked behind the harder modes of those fights. That is non-negotiable as far as Im concerned.

    • Likewise, the likelihood of ascended drops should always be higher in harder modes. The chances in easier modes should be in line with what we see from open world bosses.

    • As for magnetite shards, I think an argument can be made to have them drop (at a severely reduced rate - think 1/10th of what we see with the regular mode raids) from easy mode - but, again, they cannot be used to buy the unique skins if you haven't unlocked that skin in the harder modes - only the generic ascended gear. This retains the benefit of the harder mode, but gives people doing the easier modes another way to (very slowly) gain more ascended gear, letting them gear more characters for the harder modes themselves.

    • At the same time, it is probably worth enhancing the rewards from the hardest modes (which would be harder than what we have now - scaling needs to go both ways) - the goal being to retain the prestige of mastering the fights while addressing the population/impetus for dev support through stepping stone easy mode levels.

    Again - this has to be about enhancing the game for everyone, even those hardcore players. The goal is to justify more resources for harder content, even if that means pairing it with lower difficulty modes to pump up the numbers.

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    As a matter of fact, from a game health perspective when factoring for rewards and longevity, that might be better.

    If you started handing out raid reward level rewards, and let's be clear, raid rewards are "poor" for raiders since they reward mostly ascended gear, which most veteran raiders have tons of and which can not be turned into gold/resources at an effective rate.

    If you started handing out ascended gear to every player who simply stepped inside an "easy raid", the entire games balance and economy goes out the window. So yes, from that angle, it might be better to not have any of both. That's also the reason why Strikes have such "poor" loot. Imagine if the current strike missions had the same chance to hand out ascended to the entire player base as raids. You'd bomb the entire economy.

    If it's not possible to make a mode feel rewarding without "bombing the entire economy", then we have a deeper problem, with said economy.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    As a matter of fact, from a game health perspective when factoring for rewards and longevity, that might be better.

    If you started handing out raid reward level rewards, and let's be clear, raid rewards are "poor" for raiders since they reward mostly ascended gear, which most veteran raiders have tons of and which can not be turned into gold/resources at an effective rate.

    If you started handing out ascended gear to every player who simply stepped inside an "easy raid", the entire games balance and economy goes out the window. So yes, from that angle, it might be better to not have any of both. That's also the reason why Strikes have such "poor" loot. Imagine if the current strike missions had the same chance to hand out ascended to the entire player base as raids. You'd bomb the entire economy.

    If it's not possible to make a mode feel rewarding without "bombing the entire economy", then we have a deeper problem, with said economy.

    Yes we do, it's called no gear progression and no inflation for 8 years. Which is a boon and detriment in different areas. Reward scaling is in the detriment pile.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Blaeys.3102 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Linken.6345 said:
    OP you say the strikes rewards were a reason you dont do them, if you think easy mode raids would have better rewards think again.

    In that case this is simply not going to work longterm, and ultimately we will be left with neither easy mode/easy strikes, nor raids/harder strikes at all. I'm sure that will be a satisfying solution to everyone [/sarcasm]

    As a matter of fact, from a game health perspective when factoring for rewards and longevity, that might be better.

    If you started handing out raid reward level rewards, and let's be clear, raid rewards are "poor" for raiders since they reward mostly ascended gear, which most veteran raiders have tons of and which can not be turned into gold/resources at an effective rate.

    If you started handing out ascended gear to every player who simply stepped inside an "easy raid", the entire games balance and economy goes out the window. So yes, from that angle, it might be better to not have any of both. That's also the reason why Strikes have such "poor" loot. Imagine if the current strike missions had the same chance to hand out ascended to the entire player base as raids. You'd bomb the entire economy.

    You bring up a good point here.

    As it pertains to rewards, here are my thoughts

    • first, the unique skins (weapons, minis and legendary armor) and titles from raid bosses should always be locked behind the harder modes of those fights. That is non-negotiable as far as Im concerned.

    • Likewise, the likelihood of ascended drops should always be higher in harder modes. The chances in easier modes should be in line with what we see from open world bosses.

    • As for magnetite shards, I think an argument can be made to have them drop (at a severely reduced rate - think 1/10th of what we see with the regular mode raids) from easy mode - but, again, they cannot be used to buy the unique skins if you haven't unlocked that skin in the harder modes - only the generic ascended gear. This retains the benefit of the harder mode, but gives people doing the easier modes another way to (very slowly) gain more ascended gear, letting them gear more characters for the harder modes themselves.

    • At the same time, it is probably worth enhancing the rewards from the hardest modes (which would be harder than what we have now - scaling needs to go both ways) - the goal being to retain the prestige of mastering the fights while addressing the population/impetus for dev support through stepping stone easy mode levels.

    Again - this has to be about enhancing the game for everyone, even those hardcore players. The goal is to justify more resources for harder content, even if that means pairing it with lower difficulty modes to pump up the numbers.

    Sure that could have worked, and given the knowledge we have now, versus 3 years ago, it might have made more sense to implement easy mode raids versus strikes. Might have, since strikes have their benefits over raids:

    • they are more closer story related
    • they are the "new" instanced content
    • the approach with strikes is radically different than with raids, aka auto grouping, less role heavy, shorter in fight and content (single boss)

    From a design point it also made sense to try strikes. Similar how fractals took over from dungeons, with some success for some players and to the detriment of others.

    One of the key arguments against easy mode raids back then was: the already low amount of resources would need to get split between easy mode and normal mode raids. Which is pretty much proven with the current status of strikes versus raids. The only thing in development, as far as we know as players, are strikes and no more raids. As such, replacing strikes with easy mode raids would have had the same effect: no new raids, rework of old content. Which is exactly what raiders where against.

    All of that was before the big exodus with wing 5. Before the implementation of legendary armor via spvp and wvw (and also reward reworks). Before there was no new lure to do the new raid wings (let's face it, who cares about LD really?). Before the more heavy focus on monetization and gem store content via open world and living world story.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    One of the key arguments against easy mode raids back then was: the already low amount of resources would need to get split between easy mode and normal mode raids. Which is pretty much proven with the current status of strikes versus raids. The only thing in development, as far as we know as players, are strikes and no more raids. As such, replacing strikes with easy mode raids would have had the same effect: no new raids, rework of old content. Which is exactly what raiders where against.

    Actually, doing two difficulty versions of the same content is much less resource intensive than doing two different types of content. Anet being able to do raids and strikes together is far less probable than doing two parallel difficulty tiers of either strikes or raids.

    And i don't think that Anet is unaware of this. Which makes their decision of going for strikes instead of easy mode raids not seem very optimistic for any further raid development.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    One of the key arguments against easy mode raids back then was: the already low amount of resources would need to get split between easy mode and normal mode raids. Which is pretty much proven with the current status of strikes versus raids. The only thing in development, as far as we know as players, are strikes and no more raids. As such, replacing strikes with easy mode raids would have had the same effect: no new raids, rework of old content. Which is exactly what raiders where against.

    Actually, doing two difficulty versions of the same content is much less resource intensive than doing two different types of content. Anet being able to do raids and strikes together is far less probable than doing two parallel difficulty tiers of either strikes or raids.

    And i don't think that Anet is unaware of this. Which makes their decision of going for strikes instead of easy mode raids not seem very optimistic for any further raid development.

    Oh absolutely, I doubt we will see any future raids at this point in time. That does not change the fact that the resources devoted to strikes are the same resources which would/could have been devoted to easy raids, without much room for normal raid development.

    Now pair the fact that strikes share a lot of assets with living world content, and the resources for unique raid content, as all raids have been thus far, diminishes even further. Which basically proves what raiders were saying: there is not enough resources for both, easy and normal raids.

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    One of the key arguments against easy mode raids back then was: the already low amount of resources would need to get split between easy mode and normal mode raids. Which is pretty much proven with the current status of strikes versus raids. The only thing in development, as far as we know as players, are strikes and no more raids. As such, replacing strikes with easy mode raids would have had the same effect: no new raids, rework of old content. Which is exactly what raiders where against.

    Actually, doing two difficulty versions of the same content is much less resource intensive than doing two different types of content. Anet being able to do raids and strikes together is far less probable than doing two parallel difficulty tiers of either strikes or raids.

    And i don't think that Anet is unaware of this. Which makes their decision of going for strikes instead of easy mode raids not seem very optimistic for any further raid development.

    Oh absolutely, I doubt we will see any future raids at this point in time. That does not change the fact that the resources devoted to strikes are the same resources which would/could have been devoted to easy raids, without much room for normal raid development.

    Now pair the fact that strikes share a lot of assets with living world content, and the resources for unique raid content, as all raids have been thus far, diminishes even further. Which basically proves what raiders were saying: there is not enough resources for both, easy and normal raids.

    That's a bit more complicated. Remember, that easy mode would have shared practically all assets with normal raids. The difference would have been in scripting, and the fact it would have required separate balancing design. So, basically, instead of 9 months per raid wing, doing both modes together might have taken maybe 11 months.

    I understand, that raiders thought that 9 months was already way too much, and extending it further would be unacceptable, but the end result was that instead of slightly lower raid release rates we'll now have no new raid wings whatsoever.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 11, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    One of the key arguments against easy mode raids back then was: the already low amount of resources would need to get split between easy mode and normal mode raids. Which is pretty much proven with the current status of strikes versus raids. The only thing in development, as far as we know as players, are strikes and no more raids. As such, replacing strikes with easy mode raids would have had the same effect: no new raids, rework of old content. Which is exactly what raiders where against.

    Actually, doing two difficulty versions of the same content is much less resource intensive than doing two different types of content. Anet being able to do raids and strikes together is far less probable than doing two parallel difficulty tiers of either strikes or raids.

    And i don't think that Anet is unaware of this. Which makes their decision of going for strikes instead of easy mode raids not seem very optimistic for any further raid development.

    Oh absolutely, I doubt we will see any future raids at this point in time. That does not change the fact that the resources devoted to strikes are the same resources which would/could have been devoted to easy raids, without much room for normal raid development.

    Now pair the fact that strikes share a lot of assets with living world content, and the resources for unique raid content, as all raids have been thus far, diminishes even further. Which basically proves what raiders were saying: there is not enough resources for both, easy and normal raids.

    That's a bit more complicated. Remember, that easy mode would have shared practically all assets with normal raids. The difference would have been in scripting, and the fact it would have required separate balancing design. So, basically, instead of 9 months per raid wing, doing both modes together might have taken maybe 11 months.

    I understand, that raiders thought that 9 months was already way too much, and extending it further would be unacceptable, but the end result was that instead of slightly lower raid release rates we'll now have no new raid wings whatsoever.

    That's without factoring for the rework of the 7 raid wings present right? Which by your metric would have meant 14 months, you used 2 additional months per raid wing, of no new content. Even strikes to some extent keep some players entertained now. I know my raid static does them at least 1nce per week, as do the more casual raid guilds I am in.

    Yes, had the decision been:
    No new content but we will devote all resources to easy raid wings and MAYBE add new raids 2 years down the road if enough players remain. The arguments for easy mode raids would have been potentially sound, and that remains a big multiple IFs.

    But even here, strikes offer some vast advantages over easy mode raids.

    We can debate the details as much as we want, and assume and calculate. The simple fact which remains is: there is not enough resources for normal raid development paired with an additional difficulty aimed at challenging instanced content (be it easy mode, strikes, ultra hard mode, or even fractals). That's quite evident by now and arguing with the power of hindsight will not change that.

  • Crackmonster.2790Crackmonster.2790 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Rewards should be less, maybe bosses drop 1 thing where 3 of those can be turned into 1 legendary insight.

    Also, the best argument for splitting raids into easymode and hardmode, and the reason it is win-win for everyone, is that raids currently lack audience enough to fund their development. Splitting raids allows for the main body of gw2 players to enjoy them(they don't currently), as well as allows those who prefer harder raids to have their content better balanced for their enjoyment instead of striving for some medium by trying to fit 2 opposite crowds under the same umbrella.

    As i said in another thread:

    If they really wanted to make their core audience expand into raids, while also conserving the challenging content for those who would get bored out of their mind if there was no challenge, what they need to do is split raids into 2 modes. Casual and harder. This is the only way to ever have both audiences. And it may be the only way to secure the interest from the majority that will afford expanded raid content, which could be exactly what the elitists want more of. So it might ultimately be a win win scenario. If raids were easy enough that you could form lfg groups for it and not die too much unless you got a really kitten group, i guarantee you people would farm them, including myself. Rewards could be half of what current raids awards are, but i implore them to not change the rewards to weaker ones and make a mistake like wow did, just make it slower to get things in casual raids, and give titles and other rewards for those doing the real hard raids, but without a split they will never engage their core gw2 audience in the elitism infested endgame. They cannot cater to both audiences at the same time, and the whole game is engineering to attract relaxed/casual/friendly people so they will never get a large elitist community. Fashion wars 2.

    TLDR;

    It is nonsense that there is not resources for developing easy modes, developing easy modes might be the only way to secure enough players to fund development of not only easy mode but more raid content. There simply aren't enough players for raid content now to expand it that much.

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

    @Crackmonster.2790 said:
    It is nonsense that there is not resources for developing easy modes, developing easy modes might be the only way to secure enough players to fund development of not only easy mode but more raid content. There simply aren't enough players for raid content now to expand it that much.

    You can say it's the other way around too though. There aren't enough players for raid content because it's abandoned content. The thing is, when Raids were new and shinny they had a good population. And by good I mean Arenanet themselves said that they were surprised at how popular Raids were. Now, after Path of Fire they switched their arguments and instead of "we are surprised at how good Raid participation is!" it became "not enough players are raiding to support it". This means that the Path of Fire raids weren't good, their rewards, their difficulty, their content release pace were all bad, leading to less players enjoying them.

    We have developer confirmation that Raids were doing fine during Heart of Thorns, so saying that there weren't enough players interested in Raids in GW2 is actually false. There was a very good audience for them, when the rewards were good, when the release cadence was fine, when the difficulty wasn't all over place. Slower and slower releases, boring end rewards, seriously fluctuating difficulty in bosses were the downfall of Raids.

  • @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Crackmonster.2790 said:
    It is nonsense that there is not resources for developing easy modes, developing easy modes might be the only way to secure enough players to fund development of not only easy mode but more raid content. There simply aren't enough players for raid content now to expand it that much.

    You can say it's the other way around too though. There aren't enough players for raid content because it's abandoned content. The thing is, when Raids were new and shinny they had a good population. And by good I mean Arenanet themselves said that they were surprised at how popular Raids were. Now, after Path of Fire they switched their arguments and instead of "we are surprised at how good Raid participation is!" it became "not enough players are raiding to support it". This means that the Path of Fire raids weren't good, their rewards, their difficulty, their content release pace were all bad, leading to less players enjoying them.

    We have developer confirmation that Raids were doing fine during Heart of Thorns, so saying that there weren't enough players interested in Raids in GW2 is actually false. There was a very good audience for them, when the rewards were good, when the release cadence was fine, when the difficulty wasn't all over place. Slower and slower releases, boring end rewards, seriously fluctuating difficulty in bosses were the downfall of Raids.

    Fair points. I wasn't around back then so it is hard for me to respond to. All i can say is we can look at other games, say for example wow how they made different difficulties to engage a larger fraction of the population. And i can speak for my own person, and say that what i mentioned would make me interested, I just don't enjoy that serious committed performance environment like i used to.

    Maybe at raid launch it was a lot of goodwill towards raids, and the people who played them were large fractions of the community so the elitism hadn't crystalized yet, but now that is has found its truer form in equilibrium we can see who is left.

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    ..., say for example wow how they made different difficulties to engage a larger fraction of the population.

    That was the intention. But the result was beyond their imagination. Speculations and warnings was ignored after announcement, since it was already decided and in motion. LFR was launched Dec/2009 :skull:. Population took a dive shortly after, face first.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    That's without factoring for the rework of the 7 raid wings present right? Which by your metric would have meant 14 months, you used 2 additional months per raid wing, of no new content.

    Now yes, although you should remember that the first suggestions for easy modes appeared before even the first wing was out. If they have done it after wings 1-3 (when they still had some raid population and resources, and only 3 wings to rework), we might have been now in a completely different situation. But no, that was obviously a bad idea then, even if the end result is exactly what some of us were saying would happen.

    We can debate the details as much as we want, and assume and calculate. The simple fact which remains is: there is not enough resources for normal raid development paired with an additional difficulty aimed at challenging instanced content (be it easy mode, strikes, ultra hard mode, or even fractals). That's quite evident by now and arguing with the power of hindsight will not change that.

    Yes, I do agree, that now is way too late to salvage anything out of raids. Too much time got wasted on putting heads in the sand then and trying to deny reality.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    That's without factoring for the rework of the 7 raid wings present right? Which by your metric would have meant 14 months, you used 2 additional months per raid wing, of no new content.

    Now yes, although you should remember that the first suggestions for easy modes appeared before even the first wing was out. If they have done it after wings 1-3 (when they still had some raid population and resources, and only 3 wings to rework), we might have been now in a completely different situation. But no, that was obviously a bad idea then, even if the end result is exactly what some of us were saying would happen.

    It made even less sense then. Raids have struggled with a long time frame for releases and were always manged by a small team. Extending release times for raids in the past could have very well caused the current issues earlier.

    You can't just go:
    Oh we should have spent resources, which are not available, earlier. If raid developement had been delayed in the time frame you suggested, we would now be seeing wing 6 release with wing 7 being far off in the future.

    But it's always nice to play the: I told you so, card on complex issues.

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    We can debate the details as much as we want, and assume and calculate. The simple fact which remains is: there is not enough resources for normal raid development paired with an additional difficulty aimed at challenging instanced content (be it easy mode, strikes, ultra hard mode, or even fractals). That's quite evident by now and arguing with the power of hindsight will not change that.

    Yes, I do agree, that now is way too late to salvage anything out of raids. Too much time got wasted on putting heads in the sand then and trying to deny reality.

    Or it was to late 1 year ago when the decision was made to not release any further challenging content and thus drying out the hardcore player base and allowing them to leave for other games.

    Denying reality is arguing that resources, which were never available, should have been spent on content. There was quite a few people arguing: sure, take resources from other parts of the game, like open world, if you want easy mode raids. The displeasure with that idea was rather huge too.

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

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Yes, I do agree, that now is way too late to salvage anything out of raids. Too much time got wasted on putting heads in the sand then and trying to deny reality.

    Raids used to be successful though as the developers themselves claimed.
    Maybe, the reason Raids aren't as popular has something to do with the game as a whole not being as popular? Maybe, I'm not so sure, that the game as a whole is losing players and participation is very low? Shouldn't that extend to Raids that have such a slow release pace? I mean the clues are all out there that the game isn't doing very hot, and hasn't been in some time, it was just obscured by the mount sales that inflated revenue results, so isn't it a consideration that Raids lost of a lot of players not because of Raids themselves but because the game as a whole is on a downwards spiral?
    When content takes so long to be released, it's up to the rest of the game to keep those players occupied. So I'm not really sure the "Failure of Raids" is the result of Raids alone.

  • Henry.5713Henry.5713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Raids are about as good as they always were. That part hasn't changed. Most of us accepted the fact that we can't expect all releases to equal the difficulty of Dhuum CM. There should be variety and all that. However, easier bosses require far less time to get all achievements done which in turn makes you crave new content almost instantly. It is a double-edged sword in the end. There need to be at least two wing releases per year to keep people busy. The most hardcore groups might prefer an even faster rate.

    No amount of possible new raiders will ever make up for the those who already left due to a lack of new content and those who are going to leave soon.
    The lack of content is the real community killer. Something that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone since we have seen this happen multiple times already. Strikes will do about as much to save raids as Fractals did to save dungeons if they slow development even further in favour of Strikes.

    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. ~ Robert Heinlein

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    That's without factoring for the rework of the 7 raid wings present right? Which by your metric would have meant 14 months, you used 2 additional months per raid wing, of no new content.

    Now yes, although you should remember that the first suggestions for easy modes appeared before even the first wing was out. If they have done it after wings 1-3 (when they still had some raid population and resources, and only 3 wings to rework), we might have been now in a completely different situation. But no, that was obviously a bad idea then, even if the end result is exactly what some of us were saying would happen.

    It made even less sense then. Raids have struggled with a long time frame for releases and were always manged by a small team. Extending release times for raids in the past could have very well caused the current issues earlier.

    Possibly. Still, if there was a chance to fix the problem, it was then. Delaying it hoping it would fix itself on its own didn't make the issue go away. It just decreased the chances of it ever getting a fix.
    Frankly, if the situation was unfixable from the very beginning, then it would have been better for the devs to learn it earlier, and stop wasting resources on doomed content. And if it was fixable, then, again, it should have been done right away, without waiting for the situation to decay beyond the point of no return.

    You can't just go:
    Oh we should have spent resources, which are not available, earlier. If raid developement had been delayed in the time frame you suggested, we would now be seeing wing 6 release with wing 7 being far off in the future.

    Again, possibly. And it's true that we don't know if making those changes would have resulted in having a chance of wing 8 even later on. We do know however that not doing anything caused the present situation, and raid abandonment.

    But it's always nice to play the: I told you so, card on complex issues.

    Nope. In situation like that, when you have seen the train approaching from miles away, but noone was interested in listening, eventually watching it crash and burn is not satisfying. It's sad and depressing.

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    We can debate the details as much as we want, and assume and calculate. The simple fact which remains is: there is not enough resources for normal raid development paired with an additional difficulty aimed at challenging instanced content (be it easy mode, strikes, ultra hard mode, or even fractals). That's quite evident by now and arguing with the power of hindsight will not change that.

    Yes, I do agree, that now is way too late to salvage anything out of raids. Too much time got wasted on putting heads in the sand then and trying to deny reality.

    Or it was to late 1 year ago when the decision was made to not release any further challenging content and thus drying out the hardcore player base and allowing them to leave for other games.

    Yes, probably 1 year ago it was also already too late to do anything. They were already winding down on everything (like expansion), so with no solution prepared beforehand the chances of them actually being able to make any impactful changes were likely close to nil.

    Denying reality is arguing that resources, which were never available, should have been spent on content. There was quite a few people arguing: sure, take resources from other parts of the game, like open world, if you want easy mode raids. The displeasure with that idea was rather huge too.

    Perhaps the resources to save raids should have been taken from raids. Or perhaps the whole idea should have been scrapped much earlier and those resources should have been dedicated to projects that had better future. Who knows. All we know is that, apparently, the resource investment they did didn't pay off.

    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.

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/f2ioqa/ncsoft_earnings_report_4q2019_25_decline_over_q3/

    The report with Reddits comments aside, the "content" isn't maintaining.

  • hellsqueen.3045hellsqueen.3045 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Blaeys.3102 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    As a system to "ease" people into raiding, scaling would have made a lot more sense than strike missions. Despite what the more vocal members of this subforum would have you believe, that has been proven time and again in other games.

    Unfortunately, it is a discussion that is almost impossible to have in a sane and logical manner on these subforums. Nothing brings the torches and pitchforks out faster than the word scaling does here.

    Not true. In the end every reasonable member of the past discussions couldn't care less about easy mode raids unless two conditions would be met:
    1. Proper balancing of rewards so that you don't gift too much raid rewards when focussing on the easy mode.
    2. Cutting resources from actual raid development in favor of creating the easy modes. This point could be disregarded by now as it seems that raids are kind of abandoned.

    We were far beyond your infamous allegations as those you mentioned were only a handful of people that posted repetitively.

    Raids don't have to be abandoned - or dead - but taking the limited resources available and using them on Strike Missions in the hope that they would create the bridge to raiding is very shortsighted. Those are the very resources that should have been used to create raid difficulty tiers, which in turn would bring more people into raids (or, alternatively, move the raid team to developing hard mode versions of the strike missions - which I think would be a much better path moving forward - hard core strikes seem more sustainable and could offer the hardcore content desired by many). Even if the people coming into easy modes never stepped foot into the harder versions, it would have created a larger audience for the mode, justifying continued investment.

    I also agree with your point about lesser reward for easy mode - that is just common sense.

    The point is, raids as they are now are unsustainable - and strike missions in their current form will do absolutely nothing to change that. They don't have the population to justify healthy development (they have more or less admitted this in the recent dev blog). Move the resources from strike missions to easy mode development (or, even better, vice versa) and you just might - even if people never advance past the easier mode. That is pretty much the only way you will ever get enough people into the game mode to justify real developer attention (whether it be on raids or on strikes - they should pick one and then focus there - using difficulty tiers to keep the population high enough to justify dev time).

    What if the issue isn't just the difficulty?

    Even with tiers, the whole concept of raids seem huge.
    The casual community is intimidated by these big boss after boss chains with their own stories, etc.

    Strikes took bosses they already fought and told them to fight them again for some more loot and they all went "hey, we did that already, we can do it again!"

    And then when you get raiders coming to the Strikes and then you have the Devs saying "Oh Strikes are nearly as hard raids now, the gaps really small" suddenly it is a confidence boost for the casuals.

    Would raid tiers have done that? Sure.
    In theory fractals should do the same.
    But they don't because the casual players fear those game modes because they seem too challenging.

    Strikes make sense in this scenario because it's goal is using the player's comfort zone to gradually challenge them until they are suddenly revealed to be ready for the stuff they were always worried about.

    Founder of Affinitus Nemus [AFNM]
    "Join Us, We're Lonely" - Our Guild At Some Point

    JUST LIKE THE LORAX, WE SPEAK FOR THE TREES!

  • @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Right now I'll be more interested in some scaling for Strike Missions, the Grothmar one specifically is such a joke that puzzles me why it was added as a "bridge" to Raids, while at best it's a "bridge" for the first instance of Heart of Thorns. Or maybe a bridge for Ascalonian Catacombs.

    @Blaeys.3102 said:
    Move the resources from strike missions to easy mode development

    Right, so spend resources and time creating content that very few will actually play. Strike Missions, if nothing else, prove how many players will be interested in an easier mode for Raids. The easier strikes of course, not the Boneskinner. A player that still doesn't play the Grothmar Strike will never get into an easy Raid, that's like the bottom of the barrel, and the maximum number of players that will join instanced content.

    At the very least the later Strikes are more exciting content, maybe not a true replacement for Raids, but at least it's content that has some sound mechanics and is not boring to play. Now I'd agree with you, if all Strikes were like the Grothmar one, then yes they'd better spend their time creating an easy mode for Raids instead. But Strikes have improved and changed considerably which gives hope for their future.

    Each Strike is supposed to be harder than the last, it's the illusion for players who are intimidated by fractals and raids to grow.

    Founder of Affinitus Nemus [AFNM]
    "Join Us, We're Lonely" - Our Guild At Some Point

    JUST LIKE THE LORAX, WE SPEAK FOR THE TREES!

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

    @Eramonster.2718 said:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/f2ioqa/ncsoft_earnings_report_4q2019_25_decline_over_q3/

    The report with Reddits comments aside, the "content" isn't maintaining.

    Nah let's blame Raids and HOT for that drop

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

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    All we know is that, apparently, the resource investment they did didn't pay off.

    Like the investment in the Icebrood Saga for example? Now that we only have the open world and all other parts of the game are scrapped, we should've seen better results, no?

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    I think most players in favor this idea that easy mode raids should have been introduced earlier, or now, or at the expense of other content should entertain 1 thought:

    What if: a main part of the revenue of the game was/is coming from the hardcore dedicated fraction of the player base?

    Not saying this is or was the case, though I have stated that I personally believe that players that are more invested are more likely to spend money (and no, I'm not saying only hardcore players can be invested), but what if losing the hardcore crowd actually has a significant impact on this games financial performance? What if aiming all resources at only casual players results in a far worse financial performance, leading into even less resources being available for the game? How would this assumption change past resource allocation desires and if true, what if challenging content had been slowed years earlier to potentially attract more players (many of which might not even be inclined to raid, no matter the difficulty)?

    Obviously, in the current situation the game is in, we can only hope and pray that is not the case since new challenging content is all but dead at the moment (please don't bring up the promised fractal, that's hardly long term challenging content worth mentioning, also given the last few fractals, hopes are low this one will be any fun).

    Overall the game has experienced a loss of players, and this is obviously felt the most in all more niche game modes, see pvp and wvw for example. This does not necessarily have to do with only the content. As a matter of fact, the content could have been perfectly fine, but due to the decline of players, might not warrant the same amount of attention as in the past.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    All we know is that, apparently, the resource investment they did didn't pay off.

    Like the investment in the Icebrood Saga for example? Now that we only have the open world and all other parts of the game are scrapped, we should've seen better results, no?

    Obviously, no. Expacs clearly are necessary - LS alone just can't carry this game. Which is why i still can't really understand Anet's decision to stop making them.

    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.