Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta

1246712

Comments

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    Vayne at this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and dragging this thread on into eternity. We get your point. Your analogy are poor ones. Please stop like you stopped playing the map because oh ya something you didn't want to do was on the list so you must stop playing every other aspect on that map. It doesn't make sense. Sometimes they give you 18/18 you gotta do all 18 or you can't get meta then you chose do I go out of my comfort zone or not. You chose not and to not even do stuff in your confort zone as a protest. And the main reason why the game you bought never required 10 man content in the meta b4 is a simple there was no 10 man content before so the game you bought changed and it's hard to feel sorry for you when you reply to every single person who differs in opinion

    I'm simpy having a conversation with people who don't seem to understand my point, or who are misrepresenting it. One guys says people are scared of instanced content, but I"m not scared of it, I dislike it. What are forums for if not to have these conversations? I'm really not arguing for the sake of arguing, nor am I alone in my opinon of this. Anyone reading the thread can see this.

    Your feedback is entirely valid even if I disagree it being a problem. Your pushing that this could risk the end of the game or at least "put it in peril" however is enormous hyperbole. (yes I know most of us are guilty of it at some point) By all means discuss how you are unhappy with the direction based on your experience, but second guessing the game going into decline over a meta achievement and then labouring the same point multiple times is hurting your argument. The game has survived vastly bigger changes than adding in a couple of instances to a meta achievement.

    It is after all....just a meta achievement. It isn't a big enough deal to hurt the game long term, especially as this isn't a new thing.

    So if you want to have a discussion about the pros and cons of having the strikes a part of a meta, then that's fine. But, the hyperbole is not needed, especially we know full well from experience that Anet will internally ignore such hyperbolic statements and always have done when/if reading feedback.

    I think more people play for those meta achievemnts by percentage than raid. I could be wrong, but I suspect that's the case. It might be a storm in a teacup. But I definitely can say how it affects me and some others in my guild who are pretty annoyed as well. Whether that translates to any kind of significant percentage of the player base, I guess we'll find out.

    I'm certain more people play for meta achievements than raids. I very doubt most of those will care about the addition of strikes (and lets be clear, these are not raids as they are designed for pugs and every day players in some cases) and an insignificant number would likely quit the game because of it.

    It'll annoy a few people which is why I don't out of hand dismiss the feedback. But it's no more than a personal preference situation rather than a potential disaster for the game. So this is exclusively how it affects you alone (edit) in terms of your feedback and not the wider playerbase

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

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

    A potential way to address this type of issue, given my earlier thought process of how strikes need to succeed, would be to have a time limited phase post Living World release where meta LW achievements require the current strike be played (in order to complete the meta LW achievement), ideally with some simple achievements in that strike, then add further achievements down the road.

    We are seeing similar things happening now with minor new content, and achievements, getting injected into old maps (just this LW release we saw Grothmar get some new achievements) and even a complete expansion of a map.

    This could bridge the possibility to get the meta achievement for players who absolutely do not want to play the strikes, keep the maps a tad more relevant by having more players return, and encourage players to try out strikes if so inclined.

    Ideally this would have to be noted in game, we have had hidden achievements in the past. Not sure if this would help the issue or simply make players complain again, but it is something to think about (if this approach is not even in the cards already, given the process of returning to previous maps this Saga).

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    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?

    Maybe you should be more specific and not write such general terms like "hardcore dedicated fraction" or "players that are more invested" because these could mean totally different groups of players for different persons.

    But if you mean with that for example players that play/want challenging10-man-instanced content, I can give you an answer according to raids (that exist for some time now in the game. Strike missions are too new, to draw conclusions):

    Experienced raiders, that are doing raids regularly, have a quit good and steady income of gold and have also quite easy and cheap access to ascended gear, they can buy gems with gold and have less need to buy gems with real money than several other players. Raiders were the most ones that used ArcDPS and its templates a lot and have voiced also a lot about their denial of Anets monetized and worse version of templates/loadouts. And raiders are (according to Anet) a very small part of the GW2 player population (so few at the moment, that it is financially not viable, to invest in creating more raids). And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) are usually not the ones that earn the most "gold-per-hour/week" in the game.

    So I doubt that raiders are a significant revenue stream for Anet.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    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?

    Maybe you should be more specific and not write such general terms like "hardcore dedicated fraction" or "players that are more invested" because these could mean totally different groups of players for different persons.

    Please don't take my post out of context or at least try to keep it in context. The part you quoted was relating to a thread in the dungeon forum and relating to raids specifically. I explicitly remarked about that and did alter the meaning of this quote to this current thread.

    You are literally responding to a quote out of context, from a different thread, without taking into account the adjustments made for this topic.

    @Zok.4956 said:
    But if you mean with that for example players that play/want challenging10-man-instanced content, I can give you an answer according to raids (that exist for some time now in the game. Strike missions are too new, to draw conclusions):

    Experienced raiders, that are doing raids regularly, have a quit good and steady income of gold and have also quite easy and cheap access to ascended gear, they can buy gems with gold and have less need to buy gems with real money than several other players. Raiders were the most ones that used ArcDPS and its templates a lot and have voiced also a lot about their denial of Anets monetized and worse version of templates/loadouts. And raiders are (according to Anet) a very small part of the GW2 player population (so few at the moment, that it is financially not viable, to invest in creating more raids). And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) are usually not the ones that earn the most "gold-per-hour/week" in the game.

    So I doubt that raiders are a significant revenue stream for Anet.

    and yet, nearly all raiders I know, have been spending money regularly on this game, myself included. That's why I specifically mentioned what I personally perceive to be one of the biggest factors for spending money: players being invested with the game and I do not differentiate between casual or hardcore players (and I did mention in which context these 2 terms are used).

    So no, I disagree that more invested players will not spend money on items only because they might have the means to circumvent this with gold to gem exchanges. Most of us have lives and can make a simple cost benefit analysis if spending the last 10-12 hours of play on 800 gems is worth more to us than paying for something if we have spare income.

    Also I was posing the post literally as a thought experiment. You can willfully work off of your assumption that:" well those players have enough gold, they aren't spending money". To which I would only answer or ask: sure, but what if you are wrong?

    EDIT:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game. The most defining aspect is usually how invested they are and how much spare income they can spend. Applying rational such as: they have enough wealth so they will not spend more money, seldom applies due to a multitude of factors (some of which are relating to addiction and addiction like tendencies, or impulsive behavior). The accumulation of wealth in a game is very seldom an issue for whales to not spend more money, that would literally make them dolphins.

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    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?

    Maybe you should be more specific and not write such general terms like "hardcore dedicated fraction" or "players that are more invested" because these could mean totally different groups of players for different persons.

    Please don't take my post out of context or at least try to keep it in context. The part you quoted was relating to a thread in the dungeon forum and relating to raids specifically. I explicitly remarked about that and did alter the meaning of this quote to this current thread.

    You are literally responding to a quote out of context, from a different thread, without taking into account the adjustments made for this topic.

    @Zok.4956 said:
    But if you mean with that for example players that play/want challenging10-man-instanced content, I can give you an answer according to raids (that exist for some time now in the game. Strike missions are too new, to draw conclusions):

    Experienced raiders, that are doing raids regularly, have a quit good and steady income of gold and have also quite easy and cheap access to ascended gear, they can buy gems with gold and have less need to buy gems with real money than several other players. Raiders were the most ones that used ArcDPS and its templates a lot and have voiced also a lot about their denial of Anets monetized and worse version of templates/loadouts. And raiders are (according to Anet) a very small part of the GW2 player population (so few at the moment, that it is financially not viable, to invest in creating more raids). And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) are usually not the ones that earn the most "gold-per-hour/week" in the game.

    So I doubt that raiders are a significant revenue stream for Anet.

    and yet, nearly all raiders I know, have been spending money regularly on this game, myself included. That's why I specifically mentioned what I personally perceive to be one of the biggest factors for spending money: players being invested with the game and I do not differentiate between casual or hardcore players (and I did mention in which context these 2 terms are used).

    So no, I disagree that more invested players will not spend money on items only because they might have the means to circumvent this with gold to gem exchanges. Most of us have lives and can make a simple cost benefit analysis if spending the last 10-12 hours of play on 800 gems is worth more to us than paying for something if we have spare income.

    Also I was posing the post literally as a thought experiment. You can willfully work off of your assumption that:" well those players have enough gold, they aren't spending money". To which I would only answer or ask: sure, but what if you are wrong?

    I know its not more then personal experience, but i probably spend far more money on this game than most people, and im on the opposite side i think that you are when it comes to the topic of the thread.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    A potential way to address this type of issue, given my earlier thought process of how strikes need to succeed, would be to have a time limited phase post Living World release where meta LW achievements require the current strike be played (in order to complete the meta LW achievement), ideally with some simple achievements in that strike, then add further achievements down the road.

    We are seeing similar things happening now with minor new content, and achievements, getting injected into old maps (just this LW release we saw Grothmar get some new achievements) and even a complete expansion of a map.

    This would be neat, im not sure if the new achievements they added into Grothmar counted for the meta however?

    This could bridge the possibility to get the meta achievement for players who absolutely do not want to play the strikes, keep the maps a tad more relevant by having more players return, and encourage players to try out strikes if so inclined.

    This i think would be a neat idea. Would keep the old maps relevant and played due to the new achievements and allow for more ways to obtain the meta.

    Ideally this would have to be noted in game, we have had hidden achievements in the past. Not sure if this would help the issue or simply make players complain again, but it is something to think about (if this approach is not even in the cards already, given the process of returning to previous maps this Saga).

    If the hidden achievements counted(they do not) for this saga or well if -all- the achievements counted for the meta nobody would be posting. You could obtain it by completing all the map achievements.

    Amana Silentchild; My Main
    Ember Wandertooth; The Kingslayer, Kianda Redpaw; The Blazing Light
    Why GW is Called Guildwars

  • Their offerings are the exact same, they are just diversifying. Did they remove the open world? Did they remove the treasure chests everywhere will bad loot that is the signature of Pof? BM is in every way a PoF map sans hearts, so it is kinda like a pof/hot hybrid map.
    Anet is trying to please everyone, that is why we have instanced content, jumping puzzles and world bosses. The meta should reflect doing everything there is to do in the content, like it has always been. How many time has the meta be locked behind doing jumping puzzles (which is one is also). There have been threads on this board complaining about jumping puzzles, but those people still have the do them to complete the meta.
    Right now Anet needs to hold strong on this issue, and stop cow towing to this minority of players whining they can't just have everything handed to them.

  • And you are a vocal minority. And there is evidence to show this. Using gw2 efficiency data, of the 49653 people who started the episode, 8677 people have killed strike whisper of jormag, the boss the same difficultly as a raid boss. Compare this to people who completed all the light puzzles, 7433, jumping puzzles are a bigger barrier to the meta than strikes. If you ignore boneskinner achievements (he been bugged since the update) or the high skill "flawless" strike achievements, the lowest completed achievements are the mundane repeat events 20 times. Honestly repeating the same unrewarding event 20 is probably the biggest gate from completing the meta, not doing the strikes.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I personally like that its there because this is an mmo and i relate mmos with multiplayer cooperative content, which sadly i didnt get from drakkar (feelsbadman).

    I think its perfectly fine for an mmo to incentivise group content, esp content that incentivises some communication and party forming versus the play alone together aproach of the ow.

    But im biased towards that kind of content and very much enjoyed content like it in the past (fractals, dungeons, raids and even hot meta way back when it was still fresh ish).

    Ill go as far as to say the ep mastery requiring the strike made it feel like early hot to me.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    I wish the story bosses of gw2 were at least strike 5-10 man encounters. Would make these fights so much more meaningful to me. It doesnt even need be hard, just make it a group content with group mechanics and ill be very pleased.

    I find that we kill elder dragons, gods, immortal litches etc practicly solo very immersion breaking.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    You are assuming they knew how they were changing the difficulty. They added crits to objects and increased the condi cap. They didn't know how that would effect the world bosses. In less than a week they doubled all the bosses health.

    It was the opposite. First they did the condi rework. Then they doubled world boss health, to compensate to that. And then, when they realized they overdid it with that last change, they allowed bosses to be crittable to compensate. And when they noticed that the end result was still a nerf compared to pre-condi rework state? They did nothing, and left the situation as it was.

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    As I said above - the feedback that Anet have is that players appear to want to do it, they just find obstacles to doing it and have asked for those obstacles to be removed. The desire seems to exist based on that reply from Andrew Gray. That is why they are pushing these strikes so hard. Any statement from us otherwise flows against the feedback they have gathered.

    Problem is, when casual players say that what's preventing them from doing raids is raid difficulty, that doesn't mean they say they want to play better. They are saying that they wants raids to become easier. Pushing players into strikes does exactly nothing to change that. It just will cause them to protest against both raids and strikes. And, as long as strikes are required to do it, against the LS meta.

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Yes. I have also done practically all of raid wings W1 to W6 achieves (apart from dhuum and Qadim CMs). Still not fan of strikes being required for LS meta.

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Act 4 of HoT requires Migraine as part of the achievement meta - a hard multi player instanced version of the story. If anything requiring more commitment than a strike mission. WHy is that OK and not a precedent for scaring off the population.

    Oh, it wasn't okay, and it did generate a lot of negative reactions then.

    I still very much resent Anet for that - that achi alone delayed my meta completions of many LS metas by at least a year. Not having HoT meta completed i didn't care as much about finishing LS3 metas, and started to work on them more only after i finally managed to finish Migraine. As a result i still don't have all of those done yet - before i got finished with them, lot of other stuff happened that decreased my enjoyment in this game.

    This meta i didn't even bother to start working on, and strikes are one of the major factors.

    I personally agree that migraine likely shouldnt have been required because of the dificulty, but it deff deserved an achievement and good rewards (if not an achievements tab on its own)

    That being said, base mordremoth fight should be a 5 to 10 man encounter and be required for act 4 and ill die on this hill, that fight felt like the most immersive fight in the game because of the lore aplication and context. We faught a god like being as a group of heroes and prevailed instead of graverushing it as a simple mortal doing it solo.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Please don't take my post out of context or at least try to keep it in context. The part you quoted was relating to a thread in the dungeon forum and relating to raids specifically. I explicitly remarked about that and did alter the meaning of this quote to this current thread.

    Then you should not have quoted that large text block yourself from another thread/context unchanged.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    So no, I disagree that more invested players will not spend money on items

    I did not write about "invested" players, whatever "invested" could mean. I wrote about raiders. Now you disagree with something, I did not even wrote.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game.

    And again, you disagree with something, I did not even wrote. In fact I wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) ...

    see also:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/63lvak/what_is_a_whale/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Please don't take my post out of context or at least try to keep it in context. The part you quoted was relating to a thread in the dungeon forum and relating to raids specifically. I explicitly remarked about that and did alter the meaning of this quote to this current thread.

    Then you should not have quoted that large text block yourself from another thread/context unchanged.

    You mean the big block of text which I clearly prefaced that it is from a different thread, then right after set into context how the argument there can be applied here and the train of thought adapted to this context? Seems to me, you could have simply actually read what you were quoting and commenting. Everybody else in this thread was able to, you were the only one who had problems it seems.

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    So no, I disagree that more invested players will not spend money on items

    I did not write about "invested" players, whatever "invested" could mean. I wrote about raiders. Now you disagree with something, I did not even wrote.

    Yes, it was clear that you were quoting and referencing something absolutely unrelated to this thread.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game.

    And again, you disagree with something, I did not even wrote. In fact I wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) ...

    see also:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/63lvak/what_is_a_whale/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller

    You referenced whales, which you prefaced with comments about raiders and then directly commented how you did not believe raiders are a huge revenue stream for Arenanet. You were either very unclear and accidentally mixed up two different points. Or worse you tried to insinuate something and are now backpedaling. Neither is good form of arguing.

    Either way, I disagreed that being a raider would in anyway relate to being a whale or not. I set into context what I believe makes up a whale and I gave examples of why your argument need not apply to raiders in this game (aka they being super wealthy gold wise and all etc).

    My main point remains:
    I believe players who are most invested in the game are the most likely to spend money, and as mentioned before, I do not differentiate between casual or hardcore players only if it might change the likelihood of a player becoming more invested.

    Please quote and address my comments in proper context, get back on topic, or just ignore what I am writing if you do not intend to put in the effort for proper debate.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    And you are a vocal minority. And there is evidence to show this. Using gw2 efficiency data, of the 49653 people who started the episode, 8677 people have killed strike whisper of jormag, the boss the same difficultly as a raid boss. Compare this to people who completed all the light puzzles, 7433, jumping puzzles are a bigger barrier to the meta than strikes. If you ignore boneskinner achievements (he been bugged since the update) or the high skill "flawless" strike achievements, the lowest completed achievements are the mundane repeat events 20 times. Honestly repeating the same unrewarding event 20 is probably the biggest gate from completing the meta, not doing the strikes.

    It's really funny because that statisitc would showthat I completed the new strike misson. I was carried through it and lay there dead for the last 13% of the boss, after a wipe. So I'm part of that statistic. I haven't gotten to the light puzzles yet, which I enjoy. So that statistic on GW 2 efficiency woulde be meaningless. IN fact, people can get carried through the strike mission but really can't be carried through light puzzles. It's a solo activity. I think a better metric is how many casual people that might have been doing light puzzles, saw the need for the strike mission and stopped playing the game or at least the zone.

    A metric impossible to obtain and on top of that includes the vague, wishy washy term of "casual" which indicates absolutely nothing because no one will ever agree what casual actually means. It's one of those nonsense buzz words that more often than not gets thrown in to define whatever people want it to define.

    However, I will jump to your defence on this one. GW2 efficiency is an (ironically) inefficient guideline to prove much. Dedicated players are more likely to jump in to play the strike first (it's new, it's unique, it's got challenging mechanics etc etc) and are also more likely to be on GW efficiency. Strikes are also more time sensitive due to population variations so players will get that done as soon as they can or as soon as teams appear - it gets priority. The JPs can be done at any time at leisure, so they move down the priority list. I'm more inclined to play at peak and if I want something to do, I'm more inclined to do a strike in that time than a repeatable JP. Because it would be wasteful not to.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • YtseJam.9784YtseJam.9784 Member ✭✭✭

    @Aaralyna.3104 said:

    @YtseJam.9784 said:
    I just realized that we need to do Strike Missions in order to complete new map mastery? W.T.F? In 7 years playing this I've never seen something like this. There's a lot of people that don't do raid/strike mission content and shouldn't be forced to do them to complete a map's mastery. This is ridiculous ANET. You really need to make it optional like the previous ones cause not everyone does strike missions. That is content for a small portion of the community. I see what you are doing there and trying to force people to do them, but this is not the way. Make it more attractive so more players can join, but don't make it mandatory for personal progression. Just another failed thought process. So disappointed.

    Hold on there... They added a new mastery point (bounties) and 2 mastery insights in Grothmar with same patch so you may want to check out there again :)

    Thanks, I already did those :)

  • Shadowmoon.7986Shadowmoon.7986 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    So by your own admission, you did the strike and completed it. It is not locking you out of the meta. Doesn't it make your own argument moot and make this into a troll thread?
    50k accounts is not a small sample size, they are probably representive of the entire playerbase seeing have only 30k of them have finished living story part. That is right 40% of the accounts have not finished the 2 hours of story content, clearly efficiency has casuals in its sample. And again, just saying you dislike my method, but unless you can come put up another objective measurement, you are honest just blowing hot air sprinkled in with antidotes and personal bias.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    Glad you tried a strike or 2 and nothing all to terrible happened. Now go finish the map and at some point I bet they drop some reqs off meta like they did for drakkar and holidays and that roller beetle race time limit etc.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    Glad you tried a strike or 2 and nothing all to terrible happened. Now go finish the map and at some point I bet they drop some reqs off meta like they did for drakkar and holidays and that roller beetle race time limit etc.

    You need like 7 achievements from Strike missions. I don't have those yet. I have to go back into Strike Missions to get the meta.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    Glad you tried a strike or 2 and nothing all to terrible happened. Now go finish the map and at some point I bet they drop some reqs off meta like they did for drakkar and holidays and that roller beetle race time limit etc.

    You need like 7 achievements from Strike missions. I don't have those yet. I have to go back into Strike Missions to get the meta.

    Ya 7. I assume u got kodan not get downed only. I have 0 from jormag so if you got 1 from that you ahead. I'd do Kodan until I had all but up to you. Next week Fraenir kinda easy so you'll get 2 there at least and right when you get 37/37 anet will patch it down to 30/30 so you can look forward to that

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game.

    And again, you disagree with something, I did not even wrote. In fact I wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) ...

    see also:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/63lvak/what_is_a_whale/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller

    You referenced whales, which you prefaced with comments about raiders and then directly commented how you did not believe raiders are a huge revenue stream for Arenanet. You were either very unclear and accidentally mixed up two different points.

    Or you could just read and try to understand what I wrote instead of again arguing just for the sake of disagreeing about something what I did not wrote. Or just follow your own advice and just ignore what I am writing if you do not intend to put in the effort for proper debate.

    Raiders earn gold and can convert gold to gems if they want to buy something with gems and very often they do not need to buy gems with real money. Whales on the other hand buy a lot of gems with real money because they do not make enough gold to convert it into all the gems they want.

    Whales generate the main revenue stream in the gem-shop/microtransactions. The whales that I know are not raiders. The raiders (this includes myself) that I know are not whales. Raiders and whales are typically different player types. Of course it is possible, that there are raiders, that are also whales, but this would be a very small percentage of raiders and given the already small population of raiders in this game, it would be even less players, so this would not result in a significant revenue stream.

    The population of raiders is so small at the moment, that Anet can not justify to invest money to create more raids. If the raid population would create a significant revenue stream, Anet would simply create more raids for this players and this revenue stream instead of creating strike-missions.

    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.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game.

    And again, you disagree with something, I did not even wrote. In fact I wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) ...

    see also:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/63lvak/what_is_a_whale/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller

    You referenced whales, which you prefaced with comments about raiders and then directly commented how you did not believe raiders are a huge revenue stream for Arenanet. You were either very unclear and accidentally mixed up two different points.

    Or you could just read and try to understand what I wrote instead of again arguing just for the sake of disagreeing about something what I did not wrote. Or just follow your own advice and just ignore what I am writing if you do not intend to put in the effort for proper debate.

    Raiders earn gold and can convert gold to gems if they want to buy something with gems and very often they do not need to buy gems with real money. Whales on the other hand buy a lot of gems with real money because they do not make enough gold to convert it into all the gems they want.

    Whales generate the main revenue stream in the gem-shop/microtransactions. The whales that I know are not raiders. The raiders (this includes myself) that I know are not whales. Raiders and whales are typically different player types. Of course it is possible, that there are raiders, that are also whales, but this would be a very small percentage of raiders and given the already small population of raiders in this game, it would be even less players, so this would not result in a significant revenue stream.

    The population of raiders is so small at the moment, that Anet can not justify to invest money to create more raids. If the raid population would create a significant revenue stream, Anet would simply create more raids for this players and this revenue stream instead of creating strike-missions.

    I'm not a raider, but I definitely believe I'm a whale.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Also your perception and understanding of whales is quite incorrect. Players being whales has seldom to do with how much gold/currency they acquire in a game.

    And again, you disagree with something, I did not even wrote. In fact I wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And usually, the "whales" (the players that spent a lot of real money for the game) ...

    see also:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/63lvak/what_is_a_whale/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller

    You referenced whales, which you prefaced with comments about raiders and then directly commented how you did not believe raiders are a huge revenue stream for Arenanet. You were either very unclear and accidentally mixed up two different points.

    Or you could just read and try to understand what I wrote instead of again arguing just for the sake of disagreeing about something what I did not wrote. Or just follow your own advice and just ignore what I am writing if you do not intend to put in the effort for proper debate.

    Fine, let's see what you wrote:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Raiders earn gold and can convert gold to gems if they want to buy something with gems and very often they do not need to buy gems with real money. Whales on the other hand buy a lot of gems with real money because they do not make enough gold to convert it into all the gems they want.

    Raiders earn 60 liquid gold and around 20-40 gold in exotics per week. Add in the remaining loot, and you might get another 20 gold of value out of that. How do I know? I've been full clearing weekly within 3-4 hours on reset for months, and have run the gw2efficiency farming tracker multiple times during those clears.

    That's around 100 gold per week a raider makes. Unless they are raid selling, which a very very very tiny fraction of the raid players do. That is without even accounting for players who do NOT full clear in 3-4 hours, of which the majority of players do not. Yes, that is without accounting for spare ascended gear, which many veteran players have multiple sets of, no matter if they raid or not if they've been playing for multiple years (and ascended is not easily, or at all monetize able).

    Any player who runs daily fractals, is making more gold per week than players that only raid. Any player that does 1-2 hours of RIBA per day, or similar farms, is making more gold per week than a raider, matching the gold per hour of fast full clear groups.

    The players who are super rich, as you point them out, are TP traders. Being a TP trader is unaffiliated to any content in this game.

    I fail to see your argument make the criteria for raiders being wealthy enough to not buy gems. You are nicely playing off of a stereotype though: the oh so rich raiders subjugating the masses of poor casual players.

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Whales generate the main revenue stream in the gem-shop/microtransactions. The whales that I know are not raiders. The raiders (this includes myself) that I know are not whales. Raiders and whales are typically different player types. Of course it is possible, that there are raiders, that are also whales, but this would be a very small percentage of raiders and given the already small population of raiders in this game, it would be even less players, so this would not result in a significant revenue stream.

    The population of raiders is so small at the moment, that Anet can not justify to invest money to create more raids. If the raid population would create a significant revenue stream, Anet would simply create more raids for this players and this revenue stream instead of creating strike-missions.

    Without repeating myself, I've already explained why and how I define how players can get invested, and a central aspect of that being highly committed to the game, let's bring this down to 1 question again:
    You are saying a vast majority of whales would not be raiders, ultimately arguing that devoting resources or content design to this niche group of players is incorrect, which seems to go against the developers approach (which offers enough potential discussion because in the end, the devs have all the metrics), fine. Let's reduce the resources devoted and all content design away from the hardcore player base. That is already mostly the case and has been for the entirety of 2019 btw.

    So:
    What if you are wrong? Are you willing to bet the games existence on your assumption?

    EDIT: and congratulations, you managed to derail this topic to once again raiders versus non raiders. Something I intentionally tried to not raise and tried to avoid when making my comments earlier. Hence why I gave a clear explanation with my original post as to which aspects are relevant to this discussion and raised the question: what if all parts of the player base are needed for a healthy financial performance, and how would that change people's perception on topic creators issue?

  • sevenDEADLY.5281sevenDEADLY.5281 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anet is assume people don't raid because they're not good enough. People don't raid because raiding isn't fun for them.

    I'm not defending adding strikes to the meta, but there are plenty of people who don't raid because they're not good enough. The constant dying due to lack of game knowledge eventually leads to frustration that leads to not liking raids. And there are people who just don't like raids at all as you say. Both of these types can exist at the same time. You can't just say everyone who doesn't raid does it strictly because they don't like raiding. It's difficult and the gap between open world bosses that require nothing more than afking while auto attacking and raiding isn't something someone should just expect to pug into one random night and 1 shot every boss for free stuff.

    It wouldn't hurt the game if something coerced some players to do more than press 1 with a condi weapon while wearing a mix of magi/soldier gear with green runes in it.

    But to clarify, I don't think forcing people into strikes for the meta is the way to go.

  • I don't really have any preference; Strikes or no Strikes, but it just seems a bit like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face to refuse to do the content one enjoys because there is content included that one does not enjoy.

    Personally, I just play the parts of the game I do enjoy, and leave the parts others enjoy to...well, those that enjoy those parts.
    It's just a game, after all.

    (I think something will be done, though, as some seem unhappy with this Meta. Perhaps, lol, I should have created threads expressing my unhappiness for all the Meta's I didn't complete because they included Achievements I didn't care for. /shrug)

  • Pirogen.9561Pirogen.9561 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    And you are a vocal minority. And there is evidence to show this. Using gw2 efficiency data, of the 49653 people who started the episode, 8677 people have killed strike whisper of jormag, the boss the same difficultly as a raid boss. Compare this to people who completed all the light puzzles, 7433, jumping puzzles are a bigger barrier to the meta than strikes. If you ignore boneskinner achievements (he been bugged since the update) or the high skill "flawless" strike achievements, the lowest completed achievements are the mundane repeat events 20 times. Honestly repeating the same unrewarding event 20 is probably the biggest gate from completing the meta, not doing the strikes.

    Only 8K players did strike? Thats a very small number.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    I don't really have any preference; Strikes or no Strikes, but it just seems a bit like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face to refuse to do the content one enjoys because there is content included that one does not enjoy.

    Personally, I just play the parts of the game I do enjoy, and leave the parts others enjoy to...well, those that enjoy those parts.
    It's just a game, after all.

    (I think something will be done, though, as some seem unhappy with this Meta. Perhaps, lol, I should have created threads expressing my unhappiness for all the Meta's I didn't complete because they included Achievements I didn't care for. /shrug)

    You dont play for the meta specifcally so iot doesn't affect you that much. But let's say they changed the game so it was so hard you had to have a specific build and learn a specifc rotation and use a damage meter or you couldn't do anything at all. Then you'd find yourself complaining.

    Not just for me, but for many people, the more casual end game is this meta that comes out every two months. After having done everythign else in the game multipe times, or everything we enjoy it's what's left. And if the group of people who play this way is large enough, this change will affect everyone's game...even raiders.

  • Hmm...how do you know I don't play for the Meta? Is it ok to not finish the Meta when it's involving Strikes, and be unhappy about that, but not ok to not finish the Meta because of other content?

    I was just making a joke about creating threads. The point still is: refusing to do content one enjoys because content one doesn't enjoy is also offered seems odd to me. But, each to their own.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @sevenDEADLY.5281 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anet is assume people don't raid because they're not good enough. People don't raid because raiding isn't fun for them.

    I'm not defending adding strikes to the meta, but there are plenty of people who don't raid because they're not good enough. The constant dying due to lack of game knowledge eventually leads to frustration that leads to not liking raids. And there are people who just don't like raids at all as you say. Both of these types can exist at the same time. You can't just say everyone who doesn't raid does it strictly because they don't like raiding. It's difficult and the gap between open world bosses that require nothing more than afking while auto attacking and raiding isn't something someone should just expect to pug into one random night and 1 shot every boss for free stuff.

    It wouldn't hurt the game if something coerced some players to do more than press 1 with a condi weapon while wearing a mix of magi/soldier gear with green runes in it.

    But to clarify, I don't think forcing people into strikes for the meta is the way to go.

    I'd wager you're wrong about this. People don't raid because they're casual. That doesn't mean they're not raiding because they're not good enough. It means they don't care enough to get better to do content that doesn't interest them. See, in order to really be good, you'd need to go to a website an look up a build, get the correct armor sorted, and then practice in front of a golem and download a DPS meter. None of these are casual activities.

    The thing is, anyone that wants to could do those things, but they don't want to do those things, because games aren't work to everyone. Those things aren't fun to everyone.

    You're trying to make the correlation that they're not good enough so they don't raid. The real correlation here is that they don't want to raid, so they don't have to jump through those hoops. It's not about being able to do it. It's not wanting to do it. And people dont' seem to get that.

    Do you really think I can't download a DPS meter and get a build from snowcrows and stand at a practice dummy until I have my rotation down? Of course I can. How many people have said raiding isn't hard. But the act of doing that would interfere with my actual enjoyment of the game. It would be less immersive. The more I look at numbers, the less I'm thinking about the world and the lore and the motivation of my characters. It's the difference between people focusing on mechanics and people focusing on immersion. I'm not interested in having a rotation at all full stop. I want to, and enjoy, reacting to the world around me.

    I'm playing a different game that raids would take me out of. Anyone can learn that rotation, and get those builds and practice until they know where to stand. It's easy if you like doing it. But some of us don't like doing it. Those that enjoy it will likely never understand.

    Sorry, but this is not about you.

    There has been ample arguments and discussion, as well as developer comments on huge performance disparity, that you can't simply put off the issue as:
    raids are not to hard for me, hence they are not to hard for any other player.

    It's fine to argue you don't believe raids have no place in this game. You can't with full honesty though argue that raids are not to difficult for part of the player base if even the developers state their intention is to introduce intermediate content especially to tackle this issue.

  • Still doesn't address the point. (Not sure why one can't express one's unhappiness and still play the parts of the game one enjoys.)
    Regardless, whatever you think works best.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @sevenDEADLY.5281 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anet is assume people don't raid because they're not good enough. People don't raid because raiding isn't fun for them.

    I'm not defending adding strikes to the meta, but there are plenty of people who don't raid because they're not good enough. The constant dying due to lack of game knowledge eventually leads to frustration that leads to not liking raids. And there are people who just don't like raids at all as you say. Both of these types can exist at the same time. You can't just say everyone who doesn't raid does it strictly because they don't like raiding. It's difficult and the gap between open world bosses that require nothing more than afking while auto attacking and raiding isn't something someone should just expect to pug into one random night and 1 shot every boss for free stuff.

    It wouldn't hurt the game if something coerced some players to do more than press 1 with a condi weapon while wearing a mix of magi/soldier gear with green runes in it.

    But to clarify, I don't think forcing people into strikes for the meta is the way to go.

    I'd wager you're wrong about this. People don't raid because they're casual. That doesn't mean they're not raiding because they're not good enough. It means they don't care enough to get better to do content that doesn't interest them. See, in order to really be good, you'd need to go to a website an look up a build, get the correct armor sorted, and then practice in front of a golem and download a DPS meter. None of these are casual activities.

    The thing is, anyone that wants to could do those things, but they don't want to do those things, because games aren't work to everyone. Those things aren't fun to everyone.

    You're trying to make the correlation that they're not good enough so they don't raid. The real correlation here is that they don't want to raid, so they don't have to jump through those hoops. It's not about being able to do it. It's not wanting to do it. And people dont' seem to get that.

    Do you really think I can't download a DPS meter and get a build from snowcrows and stand at a practice dummy until I have my rotation down? Of course I can. How many people have said raiding isn't hard. But the act of doing that would interfere with my actual enjoyment of the game. It would be less immersive. The more I look at numbers, the less I'm thinking about the world and the lore and the motivation of my characters. It's the difference between people focusing on mechanics and people focusing on immersion. I'm not interested in having a rotation at all full stop. I want to, and enjoy, reacting to the world around me.

    I'm playing a different game that raids would take me out of. Anyone can learn that rotation, and get those builds and practice until they know where to stand. It's easy if you like doing it. But some of us don't like doing it. Those that enjoy it will likely never understand.

    Sorry, but this is not about you.

    There has been ample arguments and discussion, as well as developer comments on huge performance disparity, that you can't simply put off the issue as:
    raids are not to hard for me, hence they are not to hard for any other player.

    It's fine to argue you don't believe raids have no place in this game. You can't with full honesty though argue that raids are not to difficult for part of the player base if even the developers state their intention is to introduce intermediate content especially to tackle this issue.

    You've completely missed my point. THe question isn't whether raids are too difficult or not. That's never really been the question. The question is are people not doing raids because they're too difficult. Getting better is something anyone can do if they want to do it. They don't want to do it, not because they want to be carried through everything, but because they don't want their game to feel like a job and it would...for a lot of people, myself included.

    I'm saying anyone who wants to get better and raid, gets better and raids. The fact that others aren't getting better is not the reason they're not raiding. They're not getting better because they don't have interest in that harder content. If they were suddenly better that doesn't mean they'd have interest in that harder content, or they'd get better if that makes sense.

    The 100s of page long threads about easy mode raids as well as the developer approach to this issue would suggest you are incorrect in your assumption, which is mostly based on your personal subjective experience. That's all I am saying.

  • DonArkanio.6419DonArkanio.6419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't have a problem with that requirement. And I don't believe this discourages most players.

    Strike Missions are a bridge between open-world and Raids. It's ANet's design choice and they simply want you to play the content they make. Don't like the content? Who's fault is that?

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @sevenDEADLY.5281 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anet is assume people don't raid because they're not good enough. People don't raid because raiding isn't fun for them.

    I'm not defending adding strikes to the meta, but there are plenty of people who don't raid because they're not good enough. The constant dying due to lack of game knowledge eventually leads to frustration that leads to not liking raids. And there are people who just don't like raids at all as you say. Both of these types can exist at the same time. You can't just say everyone who doesn't raid does it strictly because they don't like raiding. It's difficult and the gap between open world bosses that require nothing more than afking while auto attacking and raiding isn't something someone should just expect to pug into one random night and 1 shot every boss for free stuff.

    It wouldn't hurt the game if something coerced some players to do more than press 1 with a condi weapon while wearing a mix of magi/soldier gear with green runes in it.

    But to clarify, I don't think forcing people into strikes for the meta is the way to go.

    I'd wager you're wrong about this. People don't raid because they're casual. That doesn't mean they're not raiding because they're not good enough. It means they don't care enough to get better to do content that doesn't interest them. See, in order to really be good, you'd need to go to a website an look up a build, get the correct armor sorted, and then practice in front of a golem and download a DPS meter. None of these are casual activities.

    The thing is, anyone that wants to could do those things, but they don't want to do those things, because games aren't work to everyone. Those things aren't fun to everyone.

    You're trying to make the correlation that they're not good enough so they don't raid. The real correlation here is that they don't want to raid, so they don't have to jump through those hoops. It's not about being able to do it. It's not wanting to do it. And people dont' seem to get that.

    Do you really think I can't download a DPS meter and get a build from snowcrows and stand at a practice dummy until I have my rotation down? Of course I can. How many people have said raiding isn't hard. But the act of doing that would interfere with my actual enjoyment of the game. It would be less immersive. The more I look at numbers, the less I'm thinking about the world and the lore and the motivation of my characters. It's the difference between people focusing on mechanics and people focusing on immersion. I'm not interested in having a rotation at all full stop. I want to, and enjoy, reacting to the world around me.

    I'm playing a different game that raids would take me out of. Anyone can learn that rotation, and get those builds and practice until they know where to stand. It's easy if you like doing it. But some of us don't like doing it. Those that enjoy it will likely never understand.

    Sorry, but this is not about you.

    There has been ample arguments and discussion, as well as developer comments on huge performance disparity, that you can't simply put off the issue as:
    raids are not to hard for me, hence they are not to hard for any other player.

    It's fine to argue you don't believe raids have no place in this game. You can't with full honesty though argue that raids are not to difficult for part of the player base if even the developers state their intention is to introduce intermediate content especially to tackle this issue.

    You've completely missed my point. THe question isn't whether raids are too difficult or not. That's never really been the question. The question is are people not doing raids because they're too difficult. Getting better is something anyone can do if they want to do it. They don't want to do it, not because they want to be carried through everything, but because they don't want their game to feel like a job and it would...for a lot of people, myself included.

    I'm saying anyone who wants to get better and raid, gets better and raids. The fact that others aren't getting better is not the reason they're not raiding. They're not getting better because they don't have interest in that harder content. If they were suddenly better that doesn't mean they'd have interest in that harder content, or they'd get better if that makes sense.

    The 100s of page long threads about easy mode raids as well as the developer approach to this issue would suggest you are incorrect in your assumption, which is mostly based on your personal subjective experience. That's all I am saying.

    I know a whole lot of people who have no interest in raids, having raided in other games. None. Zero. Burned out on raids. Came here to get away from raids. Relaxing, not min/maxing, as one guy put it. You can say I'm wrong because there's a thread on the forums that asks for easy mode raids, but probably half the people in that thread were against it.

    I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying you can't simply dismiss a notion like raids are to difficult simply due to personal experience (especially with weighted evidence against this opinion). You might very well be right.

    I'm saying to simply dismiss something because it does not fit a personal argument or opinion is folly.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @sevenDEADLY.5281 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anet is assume people don't raid because they're not good enough. People don't raid because raiding isn't fun for them.

    I'm not defending adding strikes to the meta, but there are plenty of people who don't raid because they're not good enough. The constant dying due to lack of game knowledge eventually leads to frustration that leads to not liking raids. And there are people who just don't like raids at all as you say. Both of these types can exist at the same time. You can't just say everyone who doesn't raid does it strictly because they don't like raiding. It's difficult and the gap between open world bosses that require nothing more than afking while auto attacking and raiding isn't something someone should just expect to pug into one random night and 1 shot every boss for free stuff.

    It wouldn't hurt the game if something coerced some players to do more than press 1 with a condi weapon while wearing a mix of magi/soldier gear with green runes in it.

    But to clarify, I don't think forcing people into strikes for the meta is the way to go.

    I'd wager you're wrong about this. People don't raid because they're casual. That doesn't mean they're not raiding because they're not good enough. It means they don't care enough to get better to do content that doesn't interest them. See, in order to really be good, you'd need to go to a website an look up a build, get the correct armor sorted, and then practice in front of a golem and download a DPS meter. None of these are casual activities.

    The thing is, anyone that wants to could do those things, but they don't want to do those things, because games aren't work to everyone. Those things aren't fun to everyone.

    You're trying to make the correlation that they're not good enough so they don't raid. The real correlation here is that they don't want to raid, so they don't have to jump through those hoops. It's not about being able to do it. It's not wanting to do it. And people dont' seem to get that.

    Do you really think I can't download a DPS meter and get a build from snowcrows and stand at a practice dummy until I have my rotation down? Of course I can. How many people have said raiding isn't hard. But the act of doing that would interfere with my actual enjoyment of the game. It would be less immersive. The more I look at numbers, the less I'm thinking about the world and the lore and the motivation of my characters. It's the difference between people focusing on mechanics and people focusing on immersion. I'm not interested in having a rotation at all full stop. I want to, and enjoy, reacting to the world around me.

    I'm playing a different game that raids would take me out of. Anyone can learn that rotation, and get those builds and practice until they know where to stand. It's easy if you like doing it. But some of us don't like doing it. Those that enjoy it will likely never understand.

    Sorry, but this is not about you.

    There has been ample arguments and discussion, as well as developer comments on huge performance disparity, that you can't simply put off the issue as:
    raids are not to hard for me, hence they are not to hard for any other player.

    It's fine to argue you don't believe raids have no place in this game. You can't with full honesty though argue that raids are not to difficult for part of the player base if even the developers state their intention is to introduce intermediate content especially to tackle this issue.

    You've completely missed my point. THe question isn't whether raids are too difficult or not. That's never really been the question. The question is are people not doing raids because they're too difficult. Getting better is something anyone can do if they want to do it. They don't want to do it, not because they want to be carried through everything, but because they don't want their game to feel like a job and it would...for a lot of people, myself included.

    I'm saying anyone who wants to get better and raid, gets better and raids. The fact that others aren't getting better is not the reason they're not raiding. They're not getting better because they don't have interest in that harder content. If they were suddenly better that doesn't mean they'd have interest in that harder content, or they'd get better if that makes sense.

    The 100s of page long threads about easy mode raids as well as the developer approach to this issue would suggest you are incorrect in your assumption, which is mostly based on your personal subjective experience. That's all I am saying.

    I know a whole lot of people who have no interest in raids, having raided in other games. None. Zero. Burned out on raids. Came here to get away from raids. Relaxing, not min/maxing, as one guy put it. You can say I'm wrong because there's a thread on the forums that asks for easy mode raids, but probably half the people in that thread were against it.

    I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying you can't simply dismiss a notion like raids are to difficult simply due to personal experience (especially with weighted evidence against this opinion). You might very well be right.

    I'm saying to simply dismiss something because it does not fit a personal argument or opinion is folly.

    There was a very highly upvoted thread on reddit about just this topic. People didn't want to do raids because they didn't want to spend their time trying to organzie groups of ten people. The post had hundreds of upvotes. It was only a couple of weeks ago. If you read through that thread, you'd see how much support there is for the idea that difficulty is not the main reason people avoid raids, unless you're talking about the difficulty of organization.

    Which does not in anyway address the huge performance disparity between players which is evident at every step of PvE content (which would explain nicely how a certain part of the player base could potentially not perform adequately in a raid environment). Or past desire of players for easy mode raids. Or the developers attempt to bridge this performance disparity.

    You've been approaching this thread from your personal view the entire 4 threads so far bringing literally every argument down to: I believe because I feel this way and any opinion which is in congruence with mine is correct, every other is incorrect.

    So fine, you are right. On everything. The developers and every one else with a diverging opinion is wrong. Let's hope the developers read this topic and discover the error in their metrics and ways. There is no reason to concern oneself with potential opinions or issues which do not agree with your view on the game or the player base.

    EDIT:
    You did not actually read through that thread did you? Hint: it does not support your thesis. Nor does the article, which has been brought up in the past (and it's a strong opinion piece with 0 sources). There is literally commentators in the first few comments already disagreeing or asking for story mode raids for story purposes only due to the difficulty of raids.