Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience

1246712

Comments

  • @Shikaru.7618 said:

    If you trained 5 times on a boss and werent able to get the kill, you either started on soulless horror or the group needs to do easier instance like t1 fractals or strikes to get used to dodging and positioning. None of the first bosses minus SH are hard enough that you cant kill them after practicing that long if you come prepared.

    I agree, I kept trying to have us train on VG, but the group voted for the Keep (I' think that was it the worgs and caslte?) we never made it much past the worgs.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 6, 2020

    My no.1 reason is the elitism. You can't join a PUG if you can't provide enough "proof" of your raid gaming skills. I, for one, understand most mechanics after the first or second run, I don't need to have done it dozens of times. Yet, I would still have to ping a high amount of LI to be allowed to join in most cases. That's tiresome and not worth my time, hence I lost interest in raids quickly.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Seth Moonshadow.2710 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Seth Moonshadow.2710 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    Honestly I think this dichotomy you wrote is the biggest problem for raids.
    Mostly because people believe this to be true while it is demonstrably false.

    Their are lots of training guilds willen to teach, and a mayor parts of the average community don't care about teaching other players at all.

    On the note of rewards, why do you think you can't get pvp rewards in pve etc. No gift of battle outside of wvw etc.

    So you admit the problem exists?!

    I admit the perception of the problem exist.

    Welp, I've already stated I have a video of just the kinds of problems I and others have listed. I'm not the only one either go look you'll find it. It's no mere "perception" but you keep telling yourself that! That in it's own is proof of the leetude we are talking about.

    The REAL fact is ANet has and knows the numbers but will NEVER share them. So to a point we'll never know. But if you look with open eyes you will see!

    Have a good day and Enjoy!

    I feel you're misunderstanding something I'm saying.

    Ofcourse their are toxic players in raids. As their are toxic players in the open world. In my experience they are a minority in both game modes.

    People believe the general raider is a toxic kitten. But that is as false as believing all people in the open world are super nice people.

    Ofcourse what is true doesn't matter here. Only what's perceived to be true. Which honestly is really sad. :(

  • "With Guild Wars 2, we wanted the entire gameplay experience to be something that players enjoyed, regardless of how much time they could dedicate."

    and

    "As you can see, we’ve taken the idea of “endgame” content beyond the traditional model and have infused it in all levels of the game, while adding enough variety to keep players with a wide array of interests engaged." ~ by Mike Zadorojny on September 13, 2012

    The developers have stated that they wanted the endgame to be only cosmetic, as opposed to a stat-driven 'gear treadmill' (a repetitious cycle of acquiring gear to beat harder content that rewards better gear, ad infinitum). ~Wiki True, better gear is not being rewarded on better cosmetics. But better gear or better cosmetics, it's still the carrot players go for!

    So as mentioned earlier, why can't we get the same rewards doing what we enjoy while creating positive interactions?

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Seth Moonshadow.2710 said:
    "With Guild Wars 2, we wanted the entire gameplay experience to be something that players enjoyed, regardless of how much time they could dedicate."

    and

    "As you can see, we’ve taken the idea of “endgame” content beyond the traditional model and have infused it in all levels of the game, while adding enough variety to keep players with a wide array of interests engaged." ~ by Mike Zadorojny on September 13, 2012

    The developers have stated that they wanted the endgame to be only cosmetic, as opposed to a stat-driven 'gear treadmill' (a repetitious cycle of acquiring gear to beat harder content that rewards better gear, ad infinitum). ~Wiki True, better gear is not being rewarded on better cosmetics. But better gear or better cosmetics, it's still the carrot players go for!

    So as mentioned earlier, why can't we get the same rewards doing what we enjoy while creating positive interactions?

    Because their is a net gain for both the studio and the playerbase to place insensitives in the different content types.

    What about the people wo tried pvp for the back piece and stayed because they enjoyed it even though he/she didn't think they would.

    On top of that, if all rewards can gotten via all the same ways the rewardstructure they would feel boring. We already see this when people complain how much can just be bought by gold. :)

  • You can have the same reward with varying degrees or different types of cosmetics in each game mode w/o blocking progress in another game mode or pitting toxicity with those that wish to avoid it.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 6, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    For instance, if what you said was true, we would have McDonald's sushi, we would have budget-priced Ferrarri's, we would have lots things that don't exist just because 'catering to the fringe' would be an awesome idea ... but we don't, so I know it's not ... and that's not different here. Raids aren't popular compared to other content.

    It's the other way around because you forgot that Arenanet was already making varied content, until they went inconsistent (remember that word?) in Q4 2019.

    No, I'm not forgetting that ... I realize that it's not JUST about content. It's about how Anet serves it's customers. Content is a part of that. Companies that know it's customers and serve those customers are way more successful than ones that go 'fishing' for fringe at the expense of it's core customer base.

    Raids only attract a small population? Yeah ... because it's fishing. No one signed up for GW2 at the beginning because raids ... so when Anet decided to intro raids, it WASN'T to benefit the original adopters of the game because those people were NEVER presented with an expectation they would ever get that content.

    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/

  • blambidy.3216blambidy.3216 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    1- No forms of difficulty scaling.

    2- The way your professions were designed... https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is cluster**** combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Note- that "cluster" comment was a link to the GW2 section on MOP.

    3- Combining number 1 + 2 ultimately created a toxic environment for instanced content that most people don't want to be part of.

    1. Strongly disagree. Mostly everyone who starts raiding ends up doing fractals. Fractals aren’t raid however t4 cms do become equivalent to 5 man raids. So easily everyone could start with lower tier fractals and earn your way up to teir 4s.

    2. Still disagree. Maybe during the first year when pof wasn’t out there wasn’t much versatility. But since pof came out there has been a variety of builds and compositions into raiding. Also there are few raids that do not require toughness agro and you can choose a different comp without the thought of a tank. For example cairn, escort, tc, rivers, all of w2, mursaat, Sam. Mursaat you don’t have a tank. You just take the fixate with o toughness and can damage the boss with it. Or you can heal and take fixate. Sam you don’t need to have toughness ether all you do is stand furthest away to take it.

    Versatility into raiding in gw2 there are so much that players judge to quickly without the knowledge. For example you have heal thief, boon thief, dps thief, condi thief, you have heal warrior, power banner slave, condi banner slave , heal scourge, power reaper, condi scourge, maybe even mf tank reaper if you wanted to raid for memes, condi soulbeast, power soulbeast, Druid, soulbeast handkite. So for people to say it involves holy trinity, I still think it doesn’t truly involve it because there are so many builds and choices to have in a raid that can be viable and kill the boss. The thing is, is people take snowcrows as this god tier only site, which don’t get me wrong their rotations are the only thing the average raider should go by. The compositions the average raider shouldn’t. Almost every fight snowcrows only uses 1 healer. And 90% of the time you use 2 as the average raider. But there is so much about gw2 builds and to say that we have gone holy trinity and their isn’t much versatility is yikes.

    1. Is only by opinion. I honestly say pvp community and wvw are much more toxic than raiding. But people come into a raid wing into a exp group and then mess up mechanics, someone is definitely going to say something. Which no new raider should be going into in the first place. It gw2 raid community is pretty laid back, it doesn’t justify the people who are actually toxic though
  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    No one signed up for GW2 at the beginning because raids ... so when Anet decided to intro raids, it WASN'T to benefit the original adopters of the game because those people were NEVER presented with an expectation they would ever get that content.

    Exactly, and for quite some time were content. It was latter that some called for "challenging content" beyond what was already the concept (dungeons) for guild wars 2. When HoT came out I found the very same players crying about the difficulty level whom once had cried for "challenging content"! HoT later received not 1 but TWO reductions to it's challenge level to were it is today. RAIDs is your challenging content..if players are not going there that is on your community. Maybe take a closer look see why others are not signing up?

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Raids only attract a small population? Yeah ... because it's fishing. No one signed up for GW2 at the beginning because raids ... so when Anet decided to intro raids, it WASN'T to benefit the original adopters of the game because those people were NEVER presented with an expectation they would ever get that content.

    Actually players signed up for GW2 because they expected content that was aimed at raiders. "This is the content for those that are raiding in other mmorpgs" is what Anet said before release. So when Anet decided to introduce Raids, it was to benefit the ORIGINAL adopters of the game and give them what was promised so long ago. The expectation was that the other content will be what "those that are raiding in other games" would find suitable to their needs, but in the end it didn't work. Do note that the vast majority of those that bought the game stopped playing in the first few months and Anet did a course correction. Part was hype, part was broken promises.

    Also, Raids had a fine population as evident by developer comments on the subject and the fact that they promised a faster release schedule. The "small population" was a result of Anet's inconsistent release cadence, lack of effort, and again broken promises. When you promise "faster release" and you make them slower instead, that's a slap in the face. It's like saying that dungeons are attracting (now) a small population, of course they do, they are abandoned content. Just like Raids and Fractals, although there is evidence to support that Fractals will be coming back.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Seth Moonshadow.2710 said:
    You can have the same reward with varying degrees or different types of cosmetics in each game mode w/o blocking progress in another game mode or pitting toxicity with those that wish to avoid it.

    I'm honestly confused about where you think progress is blocked. And was this post a response to my response on you?

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2020

    They simply aren't fun, and don't feel good to play in this game. Granted this has some of the BEST Gameplay on the market but not for PvE instanced encounters, in my opinion that goes to ESO their dungeons and trials feel great and they feel right. Anyone can tank, anyone can heal and anyone can be DPS its if you want to fill those roles then you fill those roles. THAT is how you keep the trinity alive without making it the WoW Style of trinity, just make it so any class can fill any role and there you go give everyone the tools and make it a matter of building around them and making it engaging and fun to play.

    Guild wars 2 is not it, never has been it and probably never will be it. I did the first three wings; And was unimpressed and honestly never looked back because too me? Felt like just a timer with a huge damage sponge, with gimmicky mechanics and little to no challenge outside of the "Will my team be comprised of people who know how to play the game? Or will I get people who want to go in there and use a meme build, thinking its an S-tier when the game sadly forces specific things." Now I in no way support, use or desire to be apart of the "meta" but I do want people who can do mechanics and do decent or comparable numbers for the content. I also would like chill people who aren't kitten's about it but that just didn't exist then and it SURE doesn't exist now.

    So as they are designed, and as the game is designed? No they were not something guild wars 2 in my eyes was designed for, proven by how they weren't added until they abandoned living world being their only way of giving content and came out with HoT. An expansion but one they intended to cater to and pull in more audiences, of which they have treated somewhat similarly to the WvW and PvP Crowd(until recently)... With crickets.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    They simply aren't fun, and don't feel good to play in this game. Granted this has some of the BEST Gameplay on the market but not for PvE instanced encounters, in my opinion that goes to ESO their dungeons and trials feel great and they feel right. Anyone can tank, anyone can heal and anyone can be DPS its if you want to fill those roles then you fill those roles.

    Tank doesnt really exist and everyone can do it. its just that mesmer or fb have lots of blocks so they dont need minstrel for it. nothing stops you from having a druid or ren tank.
    Almost everyone can heal, everyone can dps. The only limited role is the boon support which doesnt even exist in a lot of other games. the challenge aspect is true. only very few bosses have challenging mechanics or they are gated behind cm which nobody does because there are no rewards for it.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    No, you are wrong. Ferrari, as per your example, if part of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Ferrai IS the company serving the fringe group in the Automobile market.

    The reason they don't make cheap cars is because those mainstream customers are served by other parts of the Fiat group.

    That would be an equivalent of a developer releasing several titles, each aimed at a different player group. That works, and works well. If you want to release a single title for all those players together however...

    Wealthy people would not buy Ferrari's (or would not be willing to pay as much for them), if there also were cheap models available for the "common man". Consequently, average people would not be so eager to buy cheap models for everyday use of a label associated mainly with sport cars, and/or exclusive/pricey ones. That is exactly why Fiat keeps Ferrari and Alfa Romeo separate from their main Fiat label.

    Notice also, that a producer can indeed live off a fringe group only when said fringe group has enough buying power to make that dedication wortwhile. Ferrari sells very expensive cars, so it does not matter that much if not many people are going to buy them. Trying to target a fringe group that is not so wealthy is often not so good an idea of a business however.

    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.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Raids only attract a small population? Yeah ... because it's fishing. No one signed up for GW2 at the beginning because raids ... so when Anet decided to intro raids, it WASN'T to benefit the original adopters of the game because those people were NEVER presented with an expectation they would ever get that content.

    Actually players signed up for GW2 because they expected content that was aimed at raiders.

    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened. We know how they changed. If you continue to think that it's a great idea for a service provider to spread themselves thin and fish for all these fringe customers they can't serve, I'm just going to point you to the current situation we have in GW2 as an example of why that's a stupid thing for a service provider to do. If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    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/

  • Virdo.1540Virdo.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    why raids only attract a small audience? maybe because many people dont wanna be forced to play with strangers. why cant render it down?

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?
    We'll be here to see if spreading out again is gonna reverse their losses or not.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    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.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    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/

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

    WvW bandwagoners have small D's and never left their house even before Covid19

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

    It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    Not really sure why you brought that example back, it was more like McDonald's removing the rest of their offerings and only keeping Big Mac because it's more popular. This is about providers neglecting their audience and focusing only on what's more popular. McDonald's wouldn't survive that way, there is a reason they have a varied catalog. Raids were actually successful and people liked them, until Anet neglected them, players were actually patronizing Anet for that type of content. Until mismanagement occurred, remember at the time of Long Live the Lich the game was in turmoil and releases got pushed further back, restructuring happened (again), which also pushed Raid development back because the higher ups decided to release Raids together with episodes instead of when they were ready. That's the problem

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    There were far more reasons than just difficulty. you needed to spend hours in a map for the meta event before the revamp. fractals were in a bad state and raids werent even in the game at that point.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

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

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

    That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

    To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

    I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

    Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:
    The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

    That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

    To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

    I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

    Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:
    The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

    While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

    The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.
    On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

    That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

    To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

    I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

    Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:
    The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

    While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

    The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.
    On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

    Sure, some might have left, but I don't buy into the idea that players left ONLY because raids were added. There would have had to have been underlying issues for them to leave in the first place or some discomfort from other issues (like the difficulty of HoT for example).

    Again, raids were absolute side content at the beginning of HoT which most players, especially more casual ones, would not have even known about. I knew a lot of players did not even know where the entrance to the first wing was for months (before we got this fancy Aerodrome all access area).

    At the same time, players interested in raid content who would have joined the game.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

    OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    Not really sure why you brought that example back, ....

    probably for people that have a difficulty understanding so they have something to talk about.

    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/

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

    Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.

    One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

    That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

    To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

    I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

    Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:
    The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

    While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

    The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.
    On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

    Sure, some might have left, but I don't buy into the idea that players left ONLY because raids were added. There would have had to have been underlying issues for them to leave in the first place or some discomfort from other issues (like the difficulty of HoT for example).

    Again, raids were absolute side content at the beginning of HoT which most players, especially more casual ones, would not have even known about. I knew a lot of players did not even know where the entrance to the first wing was for months (before we got this fancy Aerodrome all access area).

    At the same time, players interested in raid content who would have joined the game.

    I agree, just wanted to complete the picture.

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

    It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point. Yeah I said many MMO's have raids, didn't realize I couldn't casually mention other MMO like you casually mention Mcdonalds to try and prove points again which I still don't get. So it's inconsistency now? And somehow I support it in my prior content. Yeah don't see that either so I'm going to let you argue with others since that entire response is something completely different then what I responded too.

    WvW bandwagoners have small D's and never left their house even before Covid19

  • NorthernRedStar.3054NorthernRedStar.3054 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    Simple - the non-"raid crowd": this is too hard, omg such bad design aoes everywhere. I don't have time for this! (You don't want to put into something to improve, which results in it taking more time than it'd have to. So, you essentially make it harder for yourself by blaming the game.)

    The "raid crowd": insert exceedingly elitistic phases here despite your mechanical skill being almost entirely reliant on the healer. The end result? Inability to adapt.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

    It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point.

    Then you need to go back and read my posts. I'm not re-iterating my point over and over for people that want to drop in and rehash.

    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:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

    OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

    Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place. You were complaining in another thread about Anet's consistency when they added Strike Missions in the zone meta achievements and you don't see an inconsistency when they removed nearly all types of content from the game for a large period of time? No PVP, no WVW, no Raids, no fractals, exclusively open world. And you don't see an inconsistency there? At all? It's only when it suits you.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    Not really sure why you brought that example back, ....

    probably for people that have a difficulty understanding so they have something to talk about.

    I already answered why your example is flawed. You are telling me it would be good business practice for McDonald's to stop offering anything BUT their most popular one? Which is what you are saying here. You have some difficulty understanding what is happening thanks to your agenda against Raids

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

    OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

    Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

    Did the game have raids when it was released? NO
    Did anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

    Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed. I guess that's only funny to people that want to ignore the fact that the introduction of raids was an inconsistent offering to the original adopters in the first place ... but OK. That's the game you want to play, at least your transparent about it. It's sad you want to accuse me of something and make this an attack than understand what my point is ... but that's fine. It's way easier to dismiss that kind of thing.

    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 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

    OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

    Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

    Did the game have raids when it was released? NO
    Did anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

    Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed.

    So you either don't know what the word means, or you forgot what you were talking about.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1178533/#Comment_1178533

    Maybe at one time, that was true. Unfortunately, what was true before is irrelevant to what is NOW. I can gaurentee the surest way for any game dev to sink their own game is to ignore what most people in the game want to do. If you think content failure has nothing to do with that, then we can only disagree with each other.

    We were talking about NOW because you wanted to and now you want to talk about how the game launched? Moving goal posts, moving topics. Really shameful

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    stuff

    I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the as-released offerings. If you can't see that difference (I know you can because you SAID so), then you aren't having this discussion in good faith.

    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/

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    stuff

    I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

    Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

    And your argument can be used to argue against the development of expacs for example. That's why I consider your argument a little weak.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place.

    It's also a pretty simple fact that they did have a good enough audience to grow and release more of them until external reasons caused them to fail. Reasons that had nothing to do with Raids themselves

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

    Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

    If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

    If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

    Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

    I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

    Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

    The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

    It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point.

    Then you need to go back and read my posts. I'm not re-iterating my point over and over for people that want to drop in and rehash.

    I have and none make sense. Mcdonalds adding sushi that targets zero customers that they currently have is not the same as adding raids to an MMO when even tho the minority still attracts an audience. You swap issues when someone disagrees then go reread my stuff then say your right then say inconsistent then say your right again so no I won't reread so you can reiterate multiple points that suit each responses needs but go nowhere overall. YOU need to stop being inconsistent not anet.

    WvW bandwagoners have small D's and never left their house even before Covid19

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

    That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

    OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

    Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

    Did the game have raids when it was released? NO
    Did anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

    Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed. I guess that's only funny to people that want to ignore the fact that the introduction of raids was an inconsistent offering to the original adopters in the first place ... but OK. That's the game you want to play, at least your transparent about it. It's sad you want to accuse me of something and make this an attack than understand what my point is ... but that's fine. It's way easier to dismiss that kind of thing.

    Of course no one joined GW2 at release for raids. Like not many MMO's start with raids because every starts off fresh then add harder content later so raids don't sit there fot 8 months before players get max level/gear. And you can't speak for a player base and say no one at all when GW2 added raids said oh GW2 has raids now let me try that game. It is not inconsistent to add raids or more difficult content to a MMO later on. To sit here and base your entire argument "NoONe on release day bought GW2 for raids is odd. And if added diff content during the course of an MMO's development is your definition of inconsistent then yeah all MMO's are inconsistent

    WvW bandwagoners have small D's and never left their house even before Covid19

  • Vilin.8056Vilin.8056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    Raid only gather a small audience because it isn't meant for everyone in the first place.
    That's why Raid skin, Raid titles stands out amongst the players, because it is a proof of the selective few who has been victorious through hard earned battles and true cooperation effort.

    But that doesn't mean they are not a selling point. Challenging, intense boss fights is always part of GW2 's offering, though players will always have preferences on contents, the importance is that we will always have the options available in an overall package. The introduction of raid simply move challenging meta boss with high fail rates onto closed stance to protect efforts from hard earning players getting ruined by AFK/Lazy farmers which was always the issue since LS1 meta, therefore why the kick system.

    As for story mode in raid, the whole discussion has been irrelevant, most w1-4 bosses has been toned down with new strategies, exploits to mechanics so much that they already stand within the story mode level. If you don't have to do green circle in Vale Guardian isn't story mode enough for you, I don't know what is.

    Sure, the overall raid community is dwindling, but that doesn't necessarily meant to be the quality of raid content, but the repetition. The thrill's simply gone after 20 kills of the same bosses throughout the time. And the same also applies to most of GW2's pve contents.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    stuff

    I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

    Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

    Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

    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 March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

    Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

    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 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 8, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

    Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

    Only when it suits yourself then. Why so selfish?

    This is yours: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1179642/#Comment_1179642

    Nothing being said here changes the fact that it's a bad idea for Anet to be inconsistent with product offerings ...

    So adding Strike Missions in zone meta achievements (which didn't exist on release) is "inconsistent".
    Removing Raids isn't inconsistent because they weren't there on release.

    Your inconsistency is rather inconsistent.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    stuff

    I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

    Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

    Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

    Yes people have joined the game for raid like content. That's the whole point your ignoring.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    stuff

    I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

    Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

    Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

    Yes people have joined the game for raid like content. That's the whole point your ignoring.

    I'm not ignoring it ... I know people have joined the game for raid like content. That's not what I'm talking about.

    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 March 8, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

    So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

    Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

    Only when it suits yourself then. Why so selfish?

    This is yours: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1179642/#Comment_1179642

    Nothing being said here changes the fact that it's a bad idea for Anet to be inconsistent with product offerings ...

    So adding Strike Missions in zone meta achievements (which didn't exist on release) is "inconsistent".
    Removing Raids isn't inconsistent because they weren't there on release.

    Your inconsistency is rather inconsistent.

    I got no idea what you are going on about.... NO one is suggesting Anet remove raids, or at least it wasn't me if there was. Furthermore, the relationship between strike mission and meta achievements and what I think about is not related to raids ... but OK, you got some tactic you want to play here to try and show I'm not consistent with my view of the game and I'm selfish? OK, you to show how me disliking Anet being inconsistent with how they present strike mission content is DIFFERENT than me disliking Anet being inconsistent with how they present any other game content, including raids. It's OK ... I can wait.

    My favourite part is where you accuse me of inconsistency ... based on something you literally made up. Awesome stuff bud. Is there a meme for 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:
    Furthermore, the relationship between strike mission and meta achievements and what I think about it has nothing to do with this thread

    It has everything to do with this thread because on one case (the removal of Raid content) you find it a no problem, because to use your own words:

    Did the game have raids when it was released? NO

    while in another case (the addition of strike missions to meta achievements) you scream "inconsistency" and how bad it is for the game (or any game)

    You think something I said about strike mission achievements conflicts something else I never said about removing raids

    Was it inconsistent to remove Raids or not? Was it inconsistent to make their release schedule so horrid to kill them (slowly)? Even after specifying that they will have faster releases. That's the important part which you simply dismissed. It's not about removing Raids, it's about what they did to Raids was inconsistent with their previous offerings AND developer comments.

    And that inconsistency is why Raids failed to retain an audience, to be on topic. Attract is a misused word in the OP, because they did succeed in attracting enough of an audience to justify their further development, but they couldn't retain said audience because of the way the developers mistreated the content. Which is the real issue here