Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience - Page 11 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience

1678911

Comments

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Guys, it was INTENDED to draw in a small audience. I was there and remember when it was talked about in HoT to an eye-roll heavy group of us players from the beginning of the game who had almost 0 incentive and interest to go into the raid itself. At the time I was actually quite into the idea of it and I even did the first raid wing shortly after it came out, was kinda fun but nothing to really write home about. The big deal is that it was meant to be niche content that didn't have a 100% confirmed cadence for when more would come out, we were after all surprised at how fast it actually did kind of start coming out.. (Which pissed more people off than it made happy, as people thought the game was focusing too much on it..)

    I actually recall a talk with my guild at the time, where some of them left the game for a long time over raids MERELY existing. Guild wars 2 was sold as X and they tried to make it Y without doing what was required to do so. No tutorials for that type of content, no explanations and no real reason to do it and even now the rewards dont justify it and without power increases coming from raids I honestly couldn't of been bothered to continue on with it. Now im not saying they are terrible or anything, I don't really care either way but reading all this its like people forget that A-net Deliberately intended for it to be niche and attract a small portion of their player base. It was stated that it wasn't for everyone and they knew this. I remember very clearly that this was talked about in a couple of interviews leading up to HoT, and even in the Expansion dev talks back then along side the talks about revenant and what it meant going forward for the classes alongside E-specs..

    Of course this was a different time, I feel like this was back when guild wars 2 had no clue what it wanted to be and was changing hands too much. We have a new team and it seems strikes/visions of the past will take the place of raids. Which might be unfortunate or it might not be as im not sure how I Feel about them on my perspective yet, but fighting over spilled milk is not gonna change anything. Raids were at their core designed to be niche, they never will and never were intended to cater to the vast majority of players and the vast majority of players are honestly none of the other game modes outside of Open world PvE. The largest portion of the game as far as I can tell is the open map/meta hunters/acheivo hunters and all that such stuff. Raiding probably is comparable in scope of pop with PvP, but Im not even sure about that due to how it seems very lively in PvP. WvW is a good chunk of the audience too, and they've been neglected for a long time I mean I've always been A WvW kid but they have ALWAYS been larger than the raiding scene and they got ignored for ages now.

    Im sure more raids might be coming, might be slow due to the small audience and niche nature of them. But Until they ring the bell and the fat lady sings.... I wouldn't count them down and out just yet.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    Yet it is still your speculation over a content development you do not involve, in both financial or design.

    Further more, you don't even know much about raid, that makes the whole discussion irrelevant.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    Yet it is still your speculation over a content development you do not involve, in both financial or design.

    Clarify please ... what do you mean "you do not involve"? Are you saying I don't do raids? What leads you to that conclusion?

    Further more, you don't even know much about raid, that makes the whole discussion irrelevant.

    What makes you think that?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    So it's speculation when someone else says it, but not when you do. We already went over your "common sense" and proved it to be factually wrong and that you have zero understanding of how businesses work. You have confused your speculation as common sense and based your statement on that, I can see that.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    @Obtena.7952 is correct. Anet can't justifying paying salaries and taking devs away from other projects for more raid development when there is only a small audience that will actually use said raid content. Anet was/is looking for alternate ways to support the raid groups without investing in raids specifically... Much like dungeons were canned in exchange for fractals. Fractals were less time and resource intensive to produce and maintain, which saves human power and money for other things. Anet is looking for the best return on investment always. Businesses are always looking for the best return on investment. That's how business goes. Look up "return on investment".

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    So it's speculation when someone else says it, but not when you do. We already went over your "common sense" and proved it to be factually wrong and that you have zero understanding of how businesses work. You have confused your speculation as common sense and based your statement on that, I can see that.

    There isn't anything speculative about a company using revenue as a decision-making factor to direct their resources to various activities they do; it's just common sense. I'm speculating that this common sense approach is why raids aren't seeing the development they once did. This isn't a hard thing to understand .. so if you can't bring yourself to understand this logical and reasonable hypothesis, it leads me to conclude you aren't qualified to discuss it with me.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

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

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    There is nothing about revenue in that post. Try again

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything speculative about a company using revenue as a decision-making factor to direct their resources to various activities they do; it's just common sense. I'm speculating that this common sense approach is why raids aren't seeing the development they once did. This isn't a hard thing to understand .. so if you can't bring yourself to understand this logical and reasonable hypothesis, it leads me to conclude you aren't qualified to discuss it with me.

    What's speculative is that the revenue is what played a role in why Raids aren't seeing the development they once had. It's not a very hard thing to understand, if you don't understand that this is pure speculation on your part then it leads me to conclude you aren't qualified to participate in this discussion and you are simply trolling.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray, or any other dev, doesn't need to come out and say "we aren't going to spend dev time and money on raids because it's not worth it", when that community PR statement is a more appropriate message to convey to players. The only one who doesn't understand that business lingo is you.

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

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray, or any other dev, doesn't need to come out and say "we aren't going to spend dev time and money on raids because it's not worth it", when that community PR statement is a more appropriate message to convey to players. The only one who doesn't understand that business lingo is you.

    First, that statement contradicts every other statement made in the past
    Second, that statement is a blanket statement referring to Raids as a whole, which makes it false by design, different Raids have completely different populations running them
    Third, it's not the first time. Remember Guild Missions? They essentially said they disbanded their Guild Team, was it because Guilds didn't bring money anymore?
    Remember dungeons and how they promoted Fractals instead? Was it because of revenue again? Or maybe it was because those responsible for making that content didn't work for the company anymore, so instead of working on top of what exists, they created something new.
    Notice how we haven't gotten a new Fractal for way longer than a new Raid. They recently hired the lead Fractal developer back, makes you wonder.
    Notice how we haven't gotten a new World Boss for nearly 2 years (Death-branded Shatterer was released nearly 2 years before Drakkar), were they also not worth spending money on and suddenly they are? Please.

    That entire statement was PR talk, promoting the new toy and finding excuses to justify its existence and the abandonment of other content in its place. Again, not the first time that it happened.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738

    "Return on investment, or ROI, is the most common profitability ratio. There are several ways to determine ROI, but the most frequently used method is to divide net profit by total assets. So if your net profit is $100,000 and your total assets are $300,000, your ROI would be .33 or 33 percent.

    Return on investment isn't necessarily the same as profit. ROI deals with the money you invest in the company and the return you realize on that money based on the net profit of the business. Profit, on the other hand, measures the performance of the business. Don't confuse ROI with the return on the owner's equity. This is an entirely different item as well. Only in sole proprietorships does equity equal the total investment or assets of the business."

    "What Is Return on Investment (ROI)?
    Return on Investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or compare the efficiency of a number of different investments. ROI tries to directly measure the amount of return on a particular investment, relative to the investment’s cost."

    "In business, the purpose of the return on investment (ROI) metric is to measure, per period, rates of return on money invested in an economic entity in order to decide whether or not to undertake an investment. It is also used as an indicator to compare different investments within a portfolio. The investment with the largest ROI is usually prioritized, even though the spread of ROI over the time period of an investment should also be taken into account."

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet. Anet will search for a better "RoI" for both employees and players.

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

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything speculative about a company using revenue as a decision-making factor to direct their resources to various activities they do; it's just common sense. I'm speculating that this common sense approach is why raids aren't seeing the development they once did. This isn't a hard thing to understand .. so if you can't bring yourself to understand this logical and reasonable hypothesis, it leads me to conclude you aren't qualified to discuss it with me.

    What's speculative is that the revenue is what played a role in why Raids aren't seeing the development they once had.

    Yeah, I know ... I'm the one that speculated this in the first place and continue to repeat my position for you in hopes you start to understand it. I love the irony you are accusing me of not understanding my own statements or how I arrived at them. Unfortunately, it appears what I said still stands ... let me know when (or if) you catch up to understanding what I'm saying so we can continue.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    Who said they were harmful? NO one ... the argument here is about ROI, not harm to the game. Those things aren't related, so why would you bring that into the discussion?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    It very well could be ... the same speculation about ROI could apply to these game elements just as easily as it does for raids. Do you understand what speculating is? Did you even READ what ROI is that Swagger provided to you?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    Follow along here...

    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience. Maybe the devs will invest in those areas at some point to help support the raid community.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    Follow along here...

    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience. Maybe the devs will invest in those areas at some point to help support the raid community.

    Again, which also came out from nothing but biased personal interpretation of a developer comment with no actual evident to prove.

    Some people just confuse personal speculations as facts.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Yeah, I know ... I'm the one that speculated this in the first place and continue to repeat my position for you in hopes you start to understand it.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works.

    So which is it? Do you speculate that revenue influenced that decision or not?

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

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    Who said they were harmful? NO one ... the argument here is about ROI, not harm to the game. Those things aren't related, so why would you bring that into the discussion?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    It very well could be ... the same speculation about ROI could apply to these game elements just as easily as it does for raids. Do you understand what speculating is? Did you even READ what ROI is that Swagger provided to you?

    Again, you're judging a game development direction with no actual prove but a loosely based principle that has no direct connection with Raid development, you are the one speculating.
    In your logic, every single game of this world needs to cut 50% of their own contents.
    I'm not sure how much do you know about game design in general.

    Talk about confusion.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

    I already stated the “why” in my op. Don’t need to cover it again. However, I’m glad we are on the same “RoI” page now!

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    Who said they were harmful? NO one ... the argument here is about ROI, not harm to the game. Those things aren't related, so why would you bring that into the discussion?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    It very well could be ... the same speculation about ROI could apply to these game elements just as easily as it does for raids. Do you understand what speculating is? Did you even READ what ROI is that Swagger provided to you?

    Again, you're judging a game development direction with no actual prove

    Yeah .. it's called speculation ... it's what the whole thread is about. Advice: if you're going to drop in 11 pages later, you have 10 pages to catch up on.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Yeah, I know ... I'm the one that speculated this in the first place and continue to repeat my position for you in hopes you start to understand it.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works.

    So which is it? Do you speculate that revenue influenced that decision or not?

    I don't get what you're after here. I already clarified this for you just a few posts ago. Here, let me quote myself, just for you.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'd like to see that post where the developers stated that they stopped Raid development due to revenue because I can't find any.

    Are you implying a lack of a post from Anet proves me wrong? because if that's true, EVERYONE is wrong; I've NEVER seen a post with ANY reason for why they stopped it. Maybe you just don't understand this thread ... this will be the THIRD time I'm reminding people we are speculating here. Let's hope that does the trick for the hard of reading folks.

    No reason to get so worked up about it. If it was mere speculation there wouldn't be 10 pages, some try to make their speculation appear as the hard truth.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works. What I speculate about how raids have a small audience is based on some very common sense principles about business. You seem to have confused these common sense principles as speculative based on your statement.

    So it's speculation when someone else says it, but not when you do. We already went over your "common sense" and proved it to be factually wrong and that you have zero understanding of how businesses work. You have confused your speculation as common sense and based your statement on that, I can see that.

    There isn't anything speculative about a company using revenue as a decision-making factor to direct their resources to various activities they do; it's just common sense. I'm speculating that this common sense approach is why raids aren't seeing the development they once did. This isn't a hard thing to understand .. so if you can't bring yourself to understand this logical and reasonable hypothesis, it leads me to conclude you aren't qualified to discuss it with me.

    What part don't you get?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

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

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    Follow along here...

    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience. Maybe the devs will invest in those areas at some point to help support the raid community.

    Again, which also came out from nothing but biased personal interpretation of a developer comment with no actual evident to prove.

    Some people just confuse personal speculations as facts.

    My words are the facts given by Andrew.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

    I already stated the “why” in my op. Don’t need to cover it again. However, I’m glad we are on the same “RoI” page now!

    There is nothing about it in your OP.
    Let's see step by step.

    Was the Raid audience "small" at least until the release of Path of Fire? According to the developers it was both acceptable AND they promised more releases. So the answer to that is probably a no, unless they were lying or something.
    Did Raids back then have difficulty modes that were suddenly removed from the game to lead to the current small audience? No, I don't recall Raids having difficulty tiers that were suddenly removed.

    So we have Raids with a fine audience without having any difficulty tiers, that then become a small audience for a variety of reasons and you claim that reason is difficulty tiers. See the fault in your OP? Your OP would make sense if difficulty tiers existed and then they were removed OR if Raids never had a proper audience. Both of these are false. So the argument of "raids have a small audience due to not having difficulty tiers" is flawed, and factually wrong.

    edit: your "profession design" argument has the exact same flaws

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

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @maddoctor.2738 Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    There is nothing like that in his post. In fact:
    "They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support"
    They want to find better ways to support Raids. Why would they do that if they were so harmful to the game?

    In GW2 this means that the "small audience" content isn't a good "RoI" for Anet.

    Is it the same for Guild Missions, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses and others that haven't been touched for years and either returned recently, or still waiting for more content?

    Follow along here...

    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience. Maybe the devs will invest in those areas at some point to help support the raid community.

    Again, which also came out from nothing but biased personal interpretation of a developer comment with no actual evident to prove.

    Some people just confuse personal speculations as facts.

    I’ll be extra helpful!

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:
    Hey everybody, my name is Andrew Gray. I took over as Content Design Lead a few months back and I want to talk a bit about last year, this year, and what's on the horizon for Guild Wars 2.

    First, 2019 was hard. I've been with ArenaNet since 2004 and I can say without question that 2019 was the studio's most challenging. Many of the people who left in 2019 were not involved in the day-to-day development of Guild Wars 2, that much is true--but they were our friends, colleagues, and in some cases literally family. All the teams were affected by saying goodbye to so many colleagues. I'm proud of what we were able to ship under the circumstances, but we also understand the legacy we are trying to carry forward with Guild Wars 2; rather than slip into a status quo, we are all determined to create an even better game moving forward.

    We've got our footing and we have exciting plans for the future of GW2. I can't talk about what I'm most excited for yet, but I can tell you 2020 is laying the groundwork for an exciting future. Here are some of the highlights:

    Living World

    • Between episodes two and three, we already mentioned we'll be releasing a special new type of content called Visions of the Past; we'll have more details on that at PAX East.
    • I can't go into a ton of details on episodes three and four because, you know, spoilers and all, but I can tell you the map is meta-focused with a push-and-pull feel similar to WvW in a PvE setting. We want maps this season to bring something to them that makes them a permanent part of your play experience. That's why the culmination of Bjora Marches is a world boss and we're striving for high replayability for the episodes three and four map. We want it to be a unique, fun, and rewarding experience that will be part of your daily/weekly play cycle.
    • After episode four, again I'm going to be somewhat vague here, but we want to revisit some of the types of content we pioneered in the past. We learned a lot with Living World Season One and one thing it did very well was to bring the community into the story, and make their actions drive the plot forward. The Nightmare Tower, the election between Evon Gnashblade and Ellen Kiel – these things are memorable experiences because the community's combined efforts had an impact on the world. As you may have noticed, we've been testing tech with things like the boss rush event, that we hope to leverage later on in The Icebrood Saga to create a unique, community experience. But, learning lessons from Season 1, the bulk of this content will be built in a way that it is still playable after the Icebrood Saga comes to a close.
    • Generally, as a team, we are placing a greater emphasis on repeatable content (open world events, world bosses, WvW, and yes, even Fractals (hint hint)). We want to make the types of content that have a lasting, positive impact on the game, so expect that design approach to focus on that more going forward.

    On the topic of Fractals…

    • Reports of their death have been greatly exaggerated, though I apologize that our silence on the topic raised that concern.
    • I am personally committed to Fractals and see them as an area that deserves more focus and attention going forward. I'm happy to announce that Cameron Rich, who worked on Fractals during Season Three, will be taking the reins on a new Fractal as he rolls off his current duties. This Fractal will feature a challenge mode. Beyond that, I'm working with the Systems Design team on more plans to keep Fractals fresh and exciting. I'm excited and when everything is ready to share, we'll have more details.

    Raids

    • Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.
    • Our intention was for Strike Missions to be that intermediary step into 10-person content. As we've mentioned before and you've likely noticed, strike missions are getting harder. Once a full suite of strike missions is complete there should be a graceful ramp up to the existing raid content rather than the imposing leap that previously existed, and our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up. In addition to that, we're striving to make improvements to Strike Missions themselves to make grouping easier, and to improve the rewards. We hope this will help introduce more people to 10-person content, which will in turn increase the number of people interested in Raids.
    • Regardless of if that succeeds or not, we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter.

    I'm excited for what's coming next. There's going to be more news coming out throughout this year that will make it pretty kitten clear why, but in the meantime, we're incredibly grateful for all your constructive feedback and continued support of the game.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

    I already stated the “why” in my op. Don’t need to cover it again. However, I’m glad we are on the same “RoI” page now!

    There is nothing about it in your OP.
    Let's see step by step.

    Was the Raid audience "small" at least until the release of Path of Fire? According to the developers it was both acceptable AND they promised more releases. So the answer to that is probably a no, unless they were lying or something.
    Did Raids back then have difficulty modes that were suddenly removed from the game to lead to the current small audience? No, I don't recall Raids having difficulty tiers that were suddenly removed.

    So we have Raids with a fine audience without having any difficulty tiers, that then become a small audience for a variety of reasons and you claim that reason is difficulty tiers. See the fault in your OP? Your OP would make sense if difficulty tiers existed and then they were removed OR if Raids never had a proper audience. Both of these are false. So the argument of "raids have a small audience due to not having difficulty tiers" is flawed, and factually wrong.

    edit: your "profession design" argument has the exact same flaws

    Hold on ... an 'acceptable' level doesn't mean it wasn't small. It simply means it was just good enough to allow raid development to continue ... until the point where it wasn't.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

    I already stated the “why” in my op. Don’t need to cover it again. However, I’m glad we are on the same “RoI” page now!

    There is nothing about it in your OP.
    Let's see step by step.

    Was the Raid audience "small" at least until the release of Path of Fire? According to the developers it was both acceptable AND they promised more releases. So the answer to that is probably a no, unless they were lying or something.
    Did Raids back then have difficulty modes that were suddenly removed from the game to lead to the current small audience? No, I don't recall Raids having difficulty tiers that were suddenly removed.

    So we have Raids with a fine audience without having any difficulty tiers, that then become a small audience for a variety of reasons and you claim that reason is difficulty tiers. See the fault in your OP? Your OP would make sense if difficulty tiers existed and then they were removed OR if Raids never had a proper audience. Both of these are false. So the argument of "raids have a small audience due to not having difficulty tiers" is flawed, and factually wrong.

    edit: your "profession design" argument has the exact same flaws

    Hold on ... an 'acceptable' level doesn't mean it wasn't small. It simply means it was just good enough to allow raid development to continue ... until the point where it wasn't.

    That doesn't change much, unless the company as a whole started having huge financial issues and had to cut here and there. But there is lots of evidence to suggest that Raids used to be way more popular in the past.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    I made my thread with the 3 main points as to why raids only attracted a small audience.

    They didn't attract a small audience, they ended up with a small audience, the audience they "attracted" was fine. Until mistakes were made that led to the population drop. Mistakes that have very little to do with any of your points. I hope you can understand the difference.

    I already stated the “why” in my op. Don’t need to cover it again. However, I’m glad we are on the same “RoI” page now!

    There is nothing about it in your OP.
    Let's see step by step.

    Was the Raid audience "small" at least until the release of Path of Fire? According to the developers it was both acceptable AND they promised more releases. So the answer to that is probably a no, unless they were lying or something.
    Did Raids back then have difficulty modes that were suddenly removed from the game to lead to the current small audience? No, I don't recall Raids having difficulty tiers that were suddenly removed.

    So we have Raids with a fine audience without having any difficulty tiers, that then become a small audience for a variety of reasons and you claim that reason is difficulty tiers. See the fault in your OP? Your OP would make sense if difficulty tiers existed and then they were removed OR if Raids never had a proper audience. Both of these are false. So the argument of "raids have a small audience due to not having difficulty tiers" is flawed, and factually wrong.

    edit: your "profession design" argument has the exact same flaws

    Hold on ... an 'acceptable' level doesn't mean it wasn't small. It simply means it was just good enough to allow raid development to continue ... until the point where it wasn't.

    That doesn't change much, unless the company as a whole started having huge financial issues and had to cut here and there.

    And that could very well be the case. I mean, that would be something indicative of dropping revenues ... OOPS, there is that again.

    But there is lots of evidence to suggest that Raids used to be way more popular in the past.

    Sure, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that raids used to be more popular than they are now. That's really a moot point though ... popular stuff can become unpopular. I think it's also reasonable to believe that if raids were MORE popular to begin with more people when they were released (oh, there is that original audience appeal coming into play again) we could have more raid development than we do now.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • pninak.1069pninak.1069 Member ✭✭✭

    Raids in other games are pretty much just 10 player content. there is no thing that holds you back. good example is FF14. they banned dps meters and thereby limited the amount of elitists and tryhards. I for one wanted to do them a long time ago, but the requirements people have just to have a fun time are just too high. How can you expect people to use the highest gear available that just has like 4 statpoints more compared to exodic? Why does it matter when I don't follow the rotation I was supposed to do? Why like people kicking people for failing one input? It is as clear as day. this wouldn't happen in gw1, because builds were built around the maximum profit for the entire team. so you got stuff like deep skipway which makes use of a elite skill that is hardly used by anyone in pve. Now in gw1 the elite missions and dungeons don't really have a lot of high requirements. Know your role. Know why you got the skills you got. This is simply not possible for gw2, because skills are way more limited in variety and switching gear can take more time. The weirdest thing is that people expect you have cleared the raid before even attempting to first play it yourself. I am for one don't wanna deal with such people and that's why raids are dead to me.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    I'll also be extra helpful.

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:

    • Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support , the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.
    • Regardless of if that succeeds or not, we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter.

    Andrew Gray clearly stated that they are reinforcing their support to raid and the raid community rather than cutting it.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Andrew Gray is saying that it's not worth the devs time and money to work on raids for a small audience period. Meaning PAID employees could be best used in other areas that generate a better RoI period. Not a new concept in business..

    I'll also be extra helpful.

    @Fire Attunement.9835 said:

    • Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support , the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract. We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up.
    • Regardless of if that succeeds or not, we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter.

    Andrew Gray clearly stated that they are reinforcing their support to raid and the raid community rather than cutting it.

    You- “Again, which also came out from nothing but biased personal interpretation of a developer comment with no actual evident to prove.
    Some people just confuse personal speculations as facts."

    Facts...

    Me- “The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.”

    • Andrew Gray- “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Me- “The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    • Andrew Gray- “Our intention was for Strike Missions to be that intermediary step into 10-person content.

    Me- “I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.”

    • Andrew Gray- “our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.”

    Me- “Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.”

    • Andrew Gray- “Regardless of if that succeeds or not, we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter.”

    ...I got the facts right. Please read a bit more carefully before you accuse someone of “biased personal interpretation”.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Me- “The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.”

    • Andrew Gray- “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Me- “The devs tried introducing strike missions as stepping stones to hopefully encourage more player to try raid content and build up the population for raids. This was their first attempt at finding a way to “support” the raid community without making more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.

    • Andrew Gray- “Our intention was for Strike Missions to be that intermediary step into 10-person content.

    Me- “I’m sure the devs will attempt other means to encourage more people to try raids and “support” that community by adding more bodies. But again, without creating more actual raids that currently only draw a “small audience”.”

    • Andrew Gray- “our hope is once that ramp is in place, the number of players participating in raids will go up.”

    Me- “Instead of saying “we are completely abandoning any and all efforts”, they are trying something to support the raid community without making actual raids that currently only appeal to a “small audience”.”

    • Andrew Gray- “Regardless of if that succeeds or not, we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter.”
      ...I got the facts right. Please read a bit more carefully before you accuse someone of “biased personal interpretation”.

    Again, “biased personal interpretation”, marked in bold italic. Mixing developer comment into your own interpretation doesn't make your interpretation facts.

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

    Ignoring the facts just so you can argue for the sake of arguing isn't a winning scenario for you, and frankly not productive. Plain words were written. Easy enough to understand. Especially side by side. Please read more carefully next time. It's on you, nobody else.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Ignoring the facts just so you can argue for the sake of arguing isn't a winning scenario for you, and frankly not productive. Plain words were written. Easy enough to understand. Especially side by side. Please read more carefully next time. It's on you, nobody else.

    Except that they aren't facts, so makes the whole argument irrelevant.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Me- “The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.”

    • Andrew Gray- “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Again, “biased personal interpretation”, marked in bold italic. Mixing developer comment into your own interpretation doesn't make your interpretation facts.

    Hold on here ... Forget what the dev said. ... I've lost track of how long it's been since a raid was released ... is that a figment of imagination? Is that someone's biased personal interpretation? I don't actually think you have thought this through ... if the “the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract.” ... and we haven't had a new raid released for a long time ... that's not biased personal interpretation ... that's basis for factual statements about Anet's willingness to make more raids ... that appears to be at THIS point, NOT. Especially considering we have 'fresh' strike missions that are presumably the new focus.

    So are you just going to hammer some pedantic point about specific wording to diminish the value of the argument because you haven't got any substance for a different line of reasoning? His whole argument is irrelevant because you don't like his 'facts'? That's a disingenuous approach to dismissing someone's line of thought don't you think?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 22, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Me- “The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.”

    • Andrew Gray- “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Again, “biased personal interpretation”, marked in bold italic. Mixing developer comment into your own interpretation doesn't make your interpretation facts.

    Hold on here ... Forget what the dev said. ... I've lost track of how long it's been since a raid was released ... is that a figment of imagination? Is that someone's biased personal interpretation? I don't actually think you have thought this through ... if the “the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract.” ... and we haven't had a new raid released for a long time ... that's not biased personal interpretation ... that's basis for factual statements about Anet's willingness to make more raids ... that appears to be at THIS point, NOT. Especially considering we have 'fresh' strike missions that are presumably the new focus.

    So care to try again or are you just going to hammer some pedantic point about specific wording like everyone else? His whole argument is irrelevant because you don't like his 'fact's? That's a disingenuous approach to dismissing someone's line of thought don't you think?

    So now you want me to forget what the developers said?

    For YOU? Yes, because you're much too distracted by it to understand the points that are being made to you. Despite what you think, hammering someone over a pedantic point doesn't make their argument any less valuable or irrelevant. That's a really dishonest approach to having a discussion with people.

    When you're wrong, you're wrong.

    So .... no counter argument other than the opinion we are wrong? Thanks.

    See the big problem in this thread is that some very reasonable and ideas and concepts are being presented as reasons for why we have the current situation ... and what is happening is that they are being dismissed as ridiculous. Why would anyone dismiss completely reasonable ideas and concepts to explain the current situation unless they had some agenda or didn't want to believe what they were being told?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2020

    My position is simple and reasonable. How you decide to label that and try to diminish it with your wordsmithing is not very relevant to the substance of that position. The best part is that it still stands, despite your claim that businesses that use revenue as a factor to decide how to direct the game is a 'conspiracy theory' that can't explain why raids aren't being developed anymore. Why? because you can't bring yourself to challenge the ideas that support that position. The best you can do is challenge the person that brings those ideas forward. It's a flawed approach, because it doesn't make the position and it's support less true. /shrug.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2020

    @Vilin.8056 said:
    So far official statement clearly states that they are still providing support to Raid,

    So what does that mean and how does that make my position on why I think they reduced raid development because of revenue irrelevant?

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

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

    @Vilin.8056 Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore those facts, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs don’t want to make more raids because that content only attracts a small audience. And ignoring those facts doesn’t change the end result.

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Vilin.8056 Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore those facts, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs don’t want to make more raids because that content only attracts a small audience. And ignoring those facts doesn’t change the end result.

    Content cuts applies on both sides, we now going from 1 map per Episode, 1/2 map per Episode to no open map on the current episode, this is also the reality. In equal logic you can say Anet developers don't want to make more open map contents, which is also pointless at best.

    There's no point to dictate your speculation as facts based on a narrow take of the current game status.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    And that could very well be the case. I mean, that would be something indicative of dropping revenues ... OOPS, there is that again.

    Indeed. For the entire game, which is outside Raid's control. And that's actually true because the total revenue did drop in the latest quarter, by quite a lot. If the total game's performance was low, it makes sense to start cutting on some parts of it, it's the unfortunate result.

    Sure, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that raids used to be more popular than they are now. That's really a moot point though ... popular stuff can become unpopular. I think it's also reasonable to believe that if raids were MORE popular to begin with more people when they were released (oh, there is that original audience appeal coming into play again) we could have more raid development than we do now.

    I think you misunderstood here. It's not simply that Raids were more popular than they are now, HOT Raids are -still- more popular than POF Raids to this day. Meaning, they did something different (and wrong) with POF Raids, something that didn't exist in HOT Raids, that caused the drop in popularity.

    edit: which has nothing to do with any of the reasons posted by Swagger, because difficulty tiers didn't exist in HOT Raids, and professions remained the same.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Yeah, I know ... I'm the one that speculated this in the first place and continue to repeat my position for you in hopes you start to understand it.

    If you don't understand how revenue influences and drives business direction, then you don't have much to contribute to a discussion on it. There isn't any speculation about how that works.

    So which is it? Do you speculate that revenue influenced that decision or not?

    In the case of dungeons, we do know that revenue influenced the decision, although from the other end. They flat out said that dungeons were so badly coded initially, that continuing to support them (which would necessitate recoding large part of them) required way more resources that they could affort to spend on them. At the same time they already had fractals, that were much cheaper to maintain. So, yes, dungeons in that old form were too costly to continue supporting, compared to concentrating on fractals they thought covered roughly the same target group, which means that this decision was definitely influenced by finances.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    The devs do not want to make more raids because they currently only attract a small audience at the end of the day.

    Key word: currently. How did we go from "population is fine" to "population is small", none of your 3 points address this.

    Simple: the initial wave coasted and receded, and only people really interested in the content remained. Turns out there were much less of them than Anet thought.
    Possibly also raids turned out to be more costly (and the community more demanding) that Anet expected as well. If we add to it the reduced financial resources (due to them siphoning out GW2 revenue into other, unrelated projects that then bombed)...
    There's also a "small" matter of w5 (see comment at the end of the post about it) that hurt raids immensely.

    Notice also, that "population is fine" does not mean it was not small even then.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    That doesn't change much, unless the company as a whole started having huge financial issues and had to cut here and there.

    Which actually almost certainly did happen.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I think you misunderstood here. It's not simply that Raids were more popular than they are now, HOT Raids are -still- more popular than POF Raids to this day. Meaning, they did something different (and wrong) with POF Raids, something that didn't exist in HOT Raids, that caused the drop in popularity.

    Yes. W5 was way more difficult than preceding raids, and that stopped a lot of group from progressing. Once they stopped once, at w5, they never continued past it.
    There are several groups i personally know that are still doing w1-w4 only, because they tried w5 a few times and decided that "raid progress" is not for them. And yes, before you ask, their opinion on w6 (beyond the first boss, which is easy) is not any better. Twin Largos may be easy for top tier groups, but they are a content stopper for less capable raiders (especially now, after the "easy mode" mirage party got nerfed hard from whait it was originally).
    I don't know about w7, because no group i was in even bothered with it.

    Basically, when the small number of raiders was crying for more difficult and challenging fights, and how w4 was way too easy, majority of raiders at this time were completely fine with that level of difficulty. And when devs listened to the few, and released w5, a lot of players got really, really disappointed. That's when the drop in popularity started.
    (and no, it wasn't about w5 and beyond using Divinations instead of Insights, because this all started long before LDs were introduced, when w5 was still using LIs).

    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:
    They flat out said that dungeons were so badly coded initially, that continuing to support them (which would necessitate recoding large part of them) required way more resources that they could affort to spend on them.

    That's true even for not "badly coded" content, when the developers of said content (like the fractal/raid team for example) doesn't work for a company anymore. No matter how well written, in many cases it's better to make something new rather than work on code someone else wrote, this is a sad truth of coding.

    Simple: the initial wave coasted and receded, and only people really interested in the content remained. Turns out there were much less of them than Anet thought.

    But I'm not talking about the initial wave. Just this Monday alone there were far more listings and groups going for Heart of Thorns Raids than Path of Fire Raids. This was also true if you compared the gw2raidar listings when that website was still active. Heart of Thorns Raids had very more "confidence" in their dps reports because there were more reports to begin with.

    There's also a "small" matter of w5 (see comment at the end of the post about it) that hurt raids immensely.

    I know, w5 was terrible.

    Notice also, that "population is fine" does not mean it was not small even then.

    The amount of players running content is irrelevant. The question is if the number of players can justify continue content creation or not.

    Which actually almost certainly did happen.

    True. And when the game did start a nose dive, certain aspects of it took a hit, causing an even further nose dive. It was also very close to the time management silently changed. This can tell us a lot about what was going behind the scenes.

    Yes. W5 was way more difficult than preceding raids, and that stopped a lot of group from progressing. Once they stopped once, at w5, they never continued past it.

    Agreed completely. Adding the first requirements for the legendary collection in w5 was also an icing on the cake. Even if a player was still interested in Raids and wanted to like w6, they'd still need to finish w5 first. Really bad design.

    There are several groups i personally know that are still doing w1-w4 only, because they tried w5 a few times and decided that "raid progress" is not for them. And yes, before you ask, their opinion on w6 (beyond the first boss, which is easy) is not any better. Twin Largos may be easy for top tier groups, but they are a content stopper for less capable raiders (especially now, after the "easy mode" mirage party got nerfed hard from whait it was originally).

    I know and I personally know players that are doing w1-w4 only as well. But not always because they tried w5 and didn't like it, but also because getting legendary armor for newer guild members/squad members is far more important than a ring (or progression). Also the game is in a lot of flux lately and honestly I can't seem to find a proper team that will stick together for a while. Everyone is simply getting bored and is leaving.

    I don't know about w7, because no group i was in even bothered with it.

    It might sound surprising, but same here. Only tried w7 once, but my team was already heavily butchered at that time due to lack of interest in the game overall that we disbanded soon after.

    Basically, when the small number of raiders was crying for more difficult and challenging fights, and how w4 was way too easy, majority of raiders at this time were completely fine with that level of difficulty. And when devs listened to the few, and released w5, a lot of players got really, really disappointed. That's when the drop in popularity started.

    Do note however that at the same time they released w5, they promised faster releases. If, and that's a huge if, w6 was released much sooner, like 6-7 months after w5, then the "Damage" caused by w5 wouldn't be so extreme. Also, remember that release delays happened around June 2018 with Long Live the Lich, which caused extra delays for Raid releases and at the same time caused a lot of dissatisfaction with the entire playerbase. Meaning what could keep players active while waiting for the next Raid (episodes) was also delayed

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

    @maddoctor.2738

    “The amount of players running content is irrelevant. The question is if the number of players can justify continue content creation or not.”

    And those numbers don’t justify making more raids... “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”. There are obviously better uses of the Anets time and money.

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

    @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Vilin.8056 Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore those facts, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs don’t want to make more raids because that content only attracts a small audience. And ignoring those facts doesn’t change the end result.

    Content cuts applies on both sides, we now going from 1 map per Episode, 1/2 map per Episode to no open map on the current episode, this is also the reality. In equal logic you can say Anet developers don't want to make more open map contents, which is also pointless at best.

    There's no point to dictate your speculation as facts based on a narrow take of the current game status.

    None of that other stuff matters. Facts are devs don’t wanna make more raids for a small audience period. My thread highlights the top 3 facts of why we are here now. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but it won’t change these facts.

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

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And those numbers don’t justify making more raids... “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”. There are obviously better uses of the Anets time and money.

    The numbers they ended with yes. Based on their past release schedule there were a good use of Anet's time and money. The question is how we got from "good use of time and money" to "not good use of time and money". The answer can be found easily comparing the HOT Raids with POF Raids and seeing what went wrong, for example, as Astralporing pointed above, Wing 5 being a mistake. The release cadence, the bad rewards, the inconsistent difficulty are some other reasons for the decline of Raids.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And those numbers don’t justify making more raids... “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”. There are obviously better uses of the Anets time and money.

    The numbers they ended with yes. Based on their past release schedule there were a good use of Anet's time and money. The question is how we got from "good use of time and money" to "not good use of time and money". The answer can be found easily comparing the HOT Raids with POF Raids and seeing what went wrong, for example, as Astralporing pointed above, Wing 5 being a mistake. The release cadence, the bad rewards, the inconsistent difficulty are some other reasons for the decline of Raids.

    Sure, by my op lays out the most important reasons why raids in GW2 went down the tubes. It’s easy to see, especially since GW2 ain’t my first online rodeo and I’ve seen other games do it better.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 23, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    And those numbers don’t justify making more raids... “the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”. There are obviously better uses of the Anets time and money.

    The numbers they ended with yes. Based on their past release schedule there were a good use of Anet's time and money. The question is how we got from "good use of time and money" to "not good use of time and money". The answer can be found easily comparing the HOT Raids with POF Raids and seeing what went wrong, for example, as Astralporing pointed above, Wing 5 being a mistake. The release cadence, the bad rewards, the inconsistent difficulty are some other reasons for the decline of Raids.

    Sure, by my op lays out the most important reasons why raids in GW2 went down the tubes. It’s easy to see, especially since GW2 ain’t my first online rodeo and I’ve seen other games do it better.

    Those reasons didn't exist as reasons when Raids were doing fine, so they aren't any kind of reason for the decline of Raids. I've given the actual reasons for the decline of Raids, and judging by the design of Strike Missions, the developers did acknowledge them.

    Starting with the easiest instead of the hardest and then progressively go higher is one such evidence. Consistent difficulty is not needed in Strike Missions that are a single boss, so this problem of Raids (not only POF Raids) was also solved. The release cadence of Strike Missions seems to be more consistent and faster than the one used in Raids. So it does look like the developers understood what went wrong in their Raids and are "fixing" it with their Strike Missions. edit: a problem with POF Raids was the rewards, rewards were tweaked/increased for Strike Missions just recently, we'll see how that helps

    Do notice that there is no "easy mode" for Strike Missions (Forging Steel does have ways to make it harder, but that's completely different than the previous Strike Missions) and the professions are mostly the same they've always been, so your given "reasons for failure" haven't been addressed. But my given reasons are being fixed/addressed, hopefully if/when they restart Raids they will remember them.