Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience

145791012

Comments

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Sure, and if the return had been with Living World episodes, we would not see a delayed expansion announced years later.

    Here is an interesting thought nugget: the devs make mistakes. Some of them one can recuperate from, others not so much. There is a good chance that raids fell pray to a mix of different issues not even directly related to the content. As have other past design and content aspects of the game.

    To pretend one knows why something failed when there was clear indicators that is used to be very successful versus a time where it is not as much without actual data, is hubris.

    So yes, raids might not make sense to see any further development now, but that doesn't mean in an alternate timeline with a different amount of support, they would have ended where they are now. As such to argue that raids never made sense is personal subjective make belief.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    So yes, raids might not make sense to see any further development now, but that doesn't mean in an alternate timeline with a different amount of support, they would have ended where they are now.

    That's true ... maybe in parrallel universe #43443678, the outcome would be different. But we aren't in that universe, we are in this one. And in THIS one, I believe raids as they were offered in this game was inconsistent with the way customers expect content.

    There isn't any 'hubris' here ... Unless raids were a loss leader, why is it so unreasonable to believe their decline was due to financial reasons? There isn't anything uncommon or unreasonable about businesses making decisions about products and services because of the revenue and profit they generate ... but somehow in THIS instance, I'm being told it's a ridiculous notion. SURE.

    I mean, what mistake do we think Anet is making here? That stopping raid development is a bad idea? Based on what? Someone's idea that they were really 'successful' some time in the past? People drawing poor conclusions based on cherrypicked examples? None of that makes sense.

    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/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    So yes, raids might not make sense to see any further development now, but that doesn't mean in an alternate timeline with a different amount of support, they would have ended where they are now.

    That's true ... maybe in parrallel universe #43443678, the outcome would be different. But we aren't in that universe, we are in this one. And in THIS one, I believe raids as they were offered in this game was inconsistent with the way customers expect content.

    There isn't any 'hubris' here ... Unless raids were a loss leader, why is it so unreasonable to believe their decline was due to financial reasons? There isn't anything uncommon or unreasonable about businesses making decisions about products and services because of the revenue and profit they generate ... but somehow in THIS instance, I'm being told it's a ridiculous notion. SURE.

    Because unlike the fact that you want to igbore many aspects pertaining to raids, there a many issues which had detrimental effects on the games population and content out side of raids.

    You can ignore those, which is fine, but shows heavy bias on your side.

    I mean, what mistake do we think Anet is making here? That stopping raid development is a bad idea? Based on what? Someone's idea that they were really 'successful' some time in the past? People drawing poor conclusions based on cherrypicked examples? None of that makes sense.

    Talking past mistakes.

    Also that "idea" was backed up by official announcements made. Which are of far more factual value than your speculations.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    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/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    You said it yourself, unless you have access to the correct data to backup your OPINION, you are runnikg on fumes.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    That's not really the question here. I mean, NO one has data, so everyone is running on fumes. That's a little disingenuous to make that accusation ONLY to 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/

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know

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

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    If you actually limited your assumption and argument to: raids are not successful enough NOW, that would cut out a lot of the subjective nonsense.

    The measure of success is the official quote and the fact that raids were supported for 4 years (and even now 10 player content sees desperate support from the devs). Which torpedos your argument that raids were not successful ebough, since after all, if the developers decided to support them, they must have been financially viable enough, or not?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know

    Hold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow.

    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 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    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/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.

    It also does not account for the fact that raid issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.

    I'm sorry, unless you decide to actually provide some facts to base your assumption on, which support this assumption all the way back to raid releases. All we have to go on is release cadence, long time continued support and past official statements on this subject. All of which can be layed out according to a persons subjective opinion, but definately not in strong support of your thesis.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.

    What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids? I don't see it. What I believe can coexist with the fact that people adopted raids at the beginning. I think people got bored or frustrated with it because it's not the reason they adopted GW2.

    It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.

    I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either. I mean, I will flip that back at you ... if ALL parts of the game are in equal decline, and Anet made the strongest development pullback on raids ... what does that tell you about how successful raids are?

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know

    Hold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow.

    No, you are wrong and been wrong multiple times. We can't follow cause you swap oh it's about this then it's about that. It's about raids being small population or raids aren't a money maker or w/e you decide to change it too too keep arguing. Raids are a small population because they are challenging and require effort and time and the possibility of changing your build to suit the needs of the group but the game is 90 percent casual so hence small population. But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like those

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

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.

    Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids?

    If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles.

    It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.

    I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either.

    So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?

    Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.

    Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids?

    If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles.

    It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.

    Sure ... and now they aren't. but that doesn't conflict with my point because I'm not claiming people wouldn't adopt raids, I'm saying how they were offered was not inline iwth why people adopted the game. the fact they were successful for a few years and now they aren't just indicates to me the population doesn't support it ... for the very reasonable idea I have why.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.

    I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either.

    So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?

    Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue.

    What I said doesn't conflict with the fact that raids used to be successful. I mean, I will flip that back at you ... if ALL parts of the game are in equal decline, and Anet made the strongest development pullback on raids ... what does that tell you about how successful raids are?

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know

    Hold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow.

    But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like those

    And the fact that Anet has pulled back development on raids should tell you something.

    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/

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...

    It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense.

    I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule.

    Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.

    Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here?

    Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.

    No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game.

    That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.

    Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids?

    If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles.

    It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.

    I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either.

    So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?

    Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue.

    What I said doesn't conflict with the fact that raids used to be successful.

    Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons.

    We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.

    Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:
    1. raids used to be successful enough
    2. stuff happened
    3. raids are not longer successful enough

    and that's the full extent one can say for sure.

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids.

    Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases.

    No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.

    It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago.

    I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good.

    Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?

    The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around.

    The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.

    Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves

    Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.

    Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind.

    Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with.

    consistencyinofferings

    Fortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.

    Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite.

    Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing.

    I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids.

    Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know

    Hold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow.

    But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like those

    And the fact that Anet has pulled back development on raids should tell you something.

    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. So that also counters the anet isn't consistent another point you use to continue this thread.

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    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 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons.

    We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.

    Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:
    1. raids used to be successful enough
    2. stuff happened
    3. raids are not longer successful enough

    and that's the full extent one can say for sure.

    Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening.

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning?

    Maybe you think this happened:

    ANet guy1: "hey guys, raids are successful"
    ANet guy2: "oh no, we better screw that up by ignoring it ... why would we want to have success!?!?!"
    ANet guy1: "Good plan!!!! We aren't here to make money. Let's see if we can sabotage the game!!"
    CHEERS ALL AROUND!!!!

    You don't like my reasonable, logical explanation so you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

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

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons.

    We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.

    Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:
    1. raids used to be successful enough
    2. stuff happened
    3. raids are not longer successful enough

    and that's the full extent one can say for sure.

    Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening.

    I would never go that far. I personally think it was a combination of issues culminating in the results we see now (as is often the case):

    • raids were tied to living world releases, which lead to issues in later stages, most notably wing 6 and 7
    • raid rewards past legendary armor failed to incentivize new players (I still don't understand why we have LD, but this suggests there was some plan for them when they got implemented)
    • legendary armor its self causes serious issues within the game (I've always been open about the fact I believe legi armor is to cheap from a balance perspective). This is only so far related that the introduction of legendary armor in spvp and wvw would have increased these issues.
    • side projects and less dedication to GW2 caused issues within the player base and lack of content (which might have perfectly made sense at the time from a studio perspective)
    • overall player base decline due to for example lack of expansion (which again, might have made perfect sense at the time)
    • very strong competitor expansions taking market share (yes, even these things will affect the game. Completely out of control of the devs)

    I wouldn't go as far as some who state that raids were murdered. That is a bit hyperbole born of frustration and trying to make a point (which might very well have been incorrect. We might be at this same stage with raids right now even if many of the other factors might not have occurred). I think they (the studio) had to take different steps at a time, and raids were part of the content which there was just not enough resources to go around to any longer based on decline it had seen from multiple factors (some not even raid related).

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

    Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post (I highlighted it for you) ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place? The only reason it's frustrating to talk to me is that I keep telling you what I'm saying and you keep talking about things that have no relation to it. You're so hellbent on proving me wrong, you don't want to consider why I think I'm right, even though you make statements above that show you understand.

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

    Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?

    And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do them

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

    Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?

    And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do them

    Of course we are back to the original adopters ... do you believe that most of the people that experienced the first raid were people that WERE NOT original adopters of the game? That makes no sense. If you don't agree with that, then you have to believe that the majority of the people that did the first raids in the game and continued to sustain that content to make it successful joined the game when raids were announced/released ... Can you confirm such an unlikely event? That seems HIGHLY unlikely to 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/

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

    Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

    Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

    You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

    You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

    You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

    Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?

    And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do them

    Of course we are back to the original adopters ... do you disagree that most of the people that experienced the first raid were people that WERE NOT original adopters of the game?

    I bought the game on release and was in a guild that did them and once in a while we would train but I'm just not good at 3h training or fear of making a mistake so I never kept trying but many did and they beat it then eventually were so good they sold raids. So do you think people bought GW2 after they added raids and no original adopters tried raids? Again we don't know. I think many adopters at least tried raids and I bet many joined GW2 when they added raids. It was successful then it wasn't then abandoned and for some reason raid prep strikes are added so idk what the future holds.

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are these people? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game so that most of the people were inline with how that content was offered.

    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:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    I'm an original adopter and I tried. You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get. How can either of us prove that either way? The players I tried with in that guild could've been original adopters idk. I mean raids came out like 3 years later. I bet many original adopters moved to other games by then. How many do you think have stayed through all 7 years. Have you? I took almost 4 off but played Hot a long time and 4 days of PoF on release before swapping back to FF14 and now here I am again w GW2 only game I play. I'm sorry if you whole argument hinges on something we both can only speculate about.

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of 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/

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons.

    We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.

    Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:
    1. raids used to be successful enough
    2. stuff happened
    3. raids are not longer successful enough

    and that's the full extent one can say for sure.

    Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening.

    I would never go that far. I personally think it was a combination of issues culminating in the results we see now (as is often the case):

    • raids were tied to living world releases, which lead to issues in later stages, most notably wing 6 and 7
    • raid rewards past legendary armor failed to incentivize new players (I still don't understand why we have LD, but this suggests there was some plan for them when they got implemented)
    • legendary armor its self causes serious issues within the game (I've always been open about the fact I believe legi armor is to cheap from a balance perspective). This is only so far related that the introduction of legendary armor in spvp and wvw would have increased these issues.
    • side projects and less dedication to GW2 caused issues within the player base and lack of content (which might have perfectly made sense at the time from a studio perspective)
    • overall player base decline due to for example lack of expansion (which again, might have made perfect sense at the time)
    • very strong competitor expansions taking market share (yes, even these things will affect the game. Completely out of control of the devs)

    I wouldn't go as far as some who state that raids were murdered. That is a bit hyperbole born of frustration and trying to make a point (which might very well have been incorrect. We might be at this same stage with raids right now even if many of the other factors might not have occurred). I think they (the studio) had to take different steps at a time, and raids were part of the content which there was just not enough resources to go around to any longer based on decline it had seen from multiple factors (some not even raid related).

    I like this post ... because I don't disagree with any of that and my view can coexist with it. You see, the question is not if raids were successful or not at the beginning ... the question is HOW successful they were. It's not unreasonable to think that if how raids were offered was more aligned with why people originally adopted the game, raids would have had a higher population to weather out some of the events or policies you mention and likely still be around today.

    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:
    Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

    ... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

    Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

    But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:
    Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

  • hellsqueen.3045hellsqueen.3045 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @DoRi Silvia.4159 said:
    My thoughts/reason raids have low pop is because players aren't willing to learn.

    Before even getting into a group (for first timers or ppl joining trainings) you should learn your class build from snowcrow, practice dps on the golem till you can get close to bench mark and also listen in discord.

    The amount of players I come across in raids that have their own build with your own rotation being out dps'd by the druid is just cringe... its meant to be the hardest content in game and you want to accept the challenge then atleast prepare your self and not the 'oh I'm just gonna play what I want cos I can and face tank all mechanics' attitude. This is one of the issues I see alot. If you dont know mechanics and have joined training group JOIN discord and listen. Very frustrating when you get stuck on one simple mechanic that one person does not do and either downs or dies.

    Raids are fun and challenging and definitely a learning curve jump from your average pve open world. BE PREPARED FOR IT.

    You don't need snow crows to be good.

    My group is only just starting to learn raiding and we nearly got our first boss kill even with the low DPS people who we are willing to teach and grow and not force them into snow crows builds that may not be comfortable with their playstyle, etc. My friend he's hitting for near 20k consistently on his own condi firebrand build and he's having a blast with it.

    I have rebuilt my own character to with skills a friend of mine would prefer and not only did some things she like improve my build but I am out DPS-ing her because of technique and understanding of the game because for the most part she is still inexperienced and perfecting her gear with our advice, so teaching is important.

    You don't need to be the same BS cookie cutter as snow crows just to be part of raids. You just need people willing to help you grow and making sure you are comfortable and you need people who will be okay with failure.

    Our friend who is teaching us mechanics parts because they have the most experience even said playing today regardless of whether we killed the boss or not was more fun than they have had raiding in a long time because we were having fun and excited, regardless.

    The raiding community stinks because too many people aren't there to just have fun with people, they are just there to get the kill because somehow that is so fun. At the end of the day, you have killed a lot of things before, it is going to get boring when everyone is the same cookie cutter snow crows build living up to a bunch of jargon in an LFG.

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

    JUST LIKE THE LORAX, WE SPEAK FOR THE TREES!

  • Animism.7530Animism.7530 Member ✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    You missed out the most important part - you gain practically nothing of the game's primary currency (gold). Strikes are quicker and more profitable; highlighting perfectly how raids fail.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

    ... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

    Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

    But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:
    Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

    I've made my points and responded to your posts. If my point isn't clear to you yet, going of on some tangent isn't going to do it.

    How does answering that question relate to my point? I ask because at this time, I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. I'm not going down some path unless I know there is a reason to. And just to remind you, my point is that raids have low population because they way they were offered was inconsistent with the reason why people adopted the game.

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then? You keep saying nonsense and then say we are the problem so I'm not even frustrated I just won't bother anymore. Then you take one sentence and act like that was the whole point in the paragraph. You are the problem. You say something then lose argument then change meaning or say you didn't say something you said or forgot you said it. Idk but the problem is def you or 20 people in these forums who talk to you wouldn't get into extended conversations with you. But hey gl with cyn or mad seems really interested lol cause you are the problem

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

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    Really if jumping on something to win then insult because I didn't put almost or the majority when it doesn't make a diff as it's your entire point. If most adopters didn't do raids then most raiders bought gw2 to raid when raids came out. Still something we can't prove and the argument hinges on it

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

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

    ... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

    Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

    But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:
    Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

    I've made my points and responded to your posts. If my point isn't clear to you yet, going of on some tangent isn't going to do it.

    How does answering that question relate to my point? I ask because at this time, I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. I'm not going down some path unless I know there is a reason to. And just to remind you, my point is that raids have low population because they way they were offered was inconsistent with the reason why people adopted the game.

    Because you said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There is really just ONE reason raids aren't all that popular ... because it's not the kind of content that most of the people that play this game want to do.

    Raids suffered by both delays and bad schedules, and I'm asking if you think delays and bad schedules could've played a role in Raid popularity.
    I ask again,. do delays and bad schedules hurt games or not? It's not a hard question to answer.

    Edit: and to be more specific, by hurt games I mean hurt their popularity. So to refine the question:
    Would delays and bad schedules hurt the popularity of content or not?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    Raids suffered from lots of things and the primary reason IMO is the reason I keep telling you. I get you have a problem with how I said only ... get over it. It doesn't make my point any less relevant.

    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 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    If most adopters didn't do raids then most raiders bought gw2 to raid when raids came out. Still something we can't prove and the argument hinges on it

    It does ... but frankly, it's pretty unlikely most people that raid originate from people that joined the game after HoT was released. It's also unlikely that even the people that joined after HoT was released to do raids would have changed the demographic so much so that it makes what I say incorrect.

    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 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

    You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

    My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

    This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

    My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad 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/

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

    You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

    My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

    This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

    My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

    No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

    You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

    My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

    This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

    My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

    No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

    There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address that question ... you just failed to read the response.

    The irony is that you already identified with your own thinking as to why what I'm saying is true, which I highlighted for you. Yet you still insist I'm wrong.

    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:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

    You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

    My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

    This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

    My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

    No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

    There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address those questions ... you just failed to read the response.

    No, no you didn't. You say the majority of original adopter didn't want raids and it's unlikely the Hot purchasers majority raided so unless you trying to say original adopters were only who bought game on release count and any one that bought it in between release and Hot were the majority of the raiders then no idea where you think these raiders came from. Again can't prove it anyway so again saying I said go read it when you didn't again shows you can't even keep track of your own opinions,

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

    The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

    You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

    Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

    I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

    You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

    Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

    You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

    My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

    This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

    My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

    No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

    There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address those questions ... you just failed to read the response.

    No, no you didn't. You say the majority of original adopter didn't want raids and it's unlikely the Hot purchasers majority raided so unless you trying to say original adopters were only who bought game on release count and any one that bought it in between release and Hot were the majority of the raiders then no idea where you think these raiders came from. Again can't prove it anyway so again saying I said go read it when you didn't again shows you can't even keep track of your own opinions,

    One thing that will not be acceptable is what you tell me I'm saying. I DID NOT SAY the majority of original adopters didn't want raids ..> EVER, NOT ONCE. If you can't comprehend what you are reading, then there is NO reason for you to discuss this with me.

    You're problems with comprehension are NOT based on me changing my point or grasping on to some minute misuse of wording.

    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 ✭✭✭

    the only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters.

    That is exactly what you said

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

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    Most = majority

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

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    deleted cause i bet you would get it deleted

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

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    the only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters.

    That is exactly what you said

    That's correct, I did say that. We have two scenarios:

    1. Most of the people that experienced the first raids were original adopters. I feel this is the most likely scenario. My point holds.
    2. Most of the people that experience the first raids were people that joined the game when raids were annouced/released likely because of raids. I believe this is not likely but ... even, if this scenario is reality, it's questionable that the size of this group was big enough to sustain raids for the remainder of the game to begin with.

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    deleted cause i bet you would get it deleted

    You bet wrong ... I'm just not petty like that. Maybe you take this personally, I don'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/