Howto: Meta achievement for normal players? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Howto: Meta achievement for normal players?

Hey,

the meta achievement for "Shadow in the ice" requires 37 achievements, and if you skip the strike mission achievements, you will get 30 of them. So, how can a normal player without raid experience get 7 other achievements from that list to get the meta achievement? I tried strike missions, but with pug groups it was a sure fail. Why are that new strike missions that hard?

Galmac

Praise Joko!

<1

Comments

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Galmac.4680 said:
    Hey,

    the meta achievement for "Shadow in the ice" requires 37 achievements, and if you skip the strike mission achievements, you will get 30 of them. So, how can a normal player without raid experience get 7 other achievements from that list to get the meta achievement? I tried strike missions, but with pug groups it was a sure fail. Why are that new strike missions that hard?

    Galmac

    The new strike missions are meant to be introductions to raids. Without getting more people into raids, they can't justify developing them. One of the obstacles they have found from feedback is the difficulty jump, so they are attempting to overcome that by making ever increasingly harder Strike Missions.

    Will it work? Probably not. Should it be part of the meta? Tough one since they need a carrot to encourage players in and hopefully inspire players to try something harder.

    I lean towards them being there to be honest. Bringing players together should be a positive thing in an MMO

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

  • Bassdeff.1895Bassdeff.1895 Member ✭✭✭

    Patience, give it some time, people will learn to master the fight and it won't be long before your are able to pug them and get all the achieves done.

  • Strikes are for normal players. Any strikes can be cleared by people who do 3 things: use lfg not the public system, run any full set of exotic gear with the same exotic rune, stack with the team. People who are incapable of doing these basic thing probably should not be rewarded the full meta. I agree that meta should not be completable by blind 1 spammers, the playerbase as a whole needs to get better.

  • Even a really inexperienced player can get achievements from the Kodan and Fraenir. Doing the fight 5 times each will easily get 2 extra achieves (break it up, elemental elegy) with basically no effort. You can also light boneskinner torches totally alone for flickering light, its just grindy.

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

    Well i mean we just did kodan 12 times in a row since santifier was bugged as it's very easy. You should be able to knock 2 off this week and 3 if you actually learn. Then next week should be able get all 3 from Fraenir easy. Then it's boneskinner and 1 you can solo. Any jormag should get you to dopple and that one should be ok. You do have to enter to get meta done and theres a whole thread already arguing this so idk man. Do it or don't but anet didn't patch to make it easier yet.

  • Galmac.4680Galmac.4680 Member ✭✭✭

    Well, I want to do strike missions. I did the ones in Grothmar and the first of Bjora (well, fought the Boneskinner before it was patched), they were ok. But the new ones now... it's like that movie "How to die in a million ways in the west" for me. I think they exaggerated here. And it won't work.

    Praise Joko!

  • Rauderi.8706Rauderi.8706 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If you did most/all of the story and map achievements, Strikes shouldn't be a problem. Some of the story achieves are inane in what they ask for.

    Many alts! Handle it!

    "A condescending answer might as well not be an answer at all."
    -Eloc Freidon.5692

  • Aaralyna.3104Aaralyna.3104 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Hidden achievements also count for the meta btw so its less than 7 strikes needed. I only needed 4 strikes and current boss on the rotating strikes is a really easy one (I organised 20x for sanctifier and didn't ask for any experience or roles...). 1 whisper of jormag achieve is actually not the strike boss but the story boss (the one that names avoiding 2 specific attacks).

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 11, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    Strikes are for normal players.

    So is every other content in the game, including PvP, WvW and Raids. But this does not mean that all players have fun playing all of this content.

    Not everything in this game will appeal to all players. Catering rewards to each individual’s preferences to what they find fun is bad for the game.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    A majority that you can't determine from forum/reddit posts.

  • They just need to make a separate strike mission achievement panel for current strike missions nd future strikes. Pretty simple, and actually for seeable that part of the player base would complain. But I think anet likes self inflicted wounds to bandage sometimes xD

  • thepenmonster.3621thepenmonster.3621 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Blude.6812 said:
    And you wonder why some players want nothing to with strikes and raids and are failing to get people to join.

    The people devoted to the side content (raids, fractals, PvP, etc...) being the reason no one else wants to play the side content is the tap-dancing elephant in the room.

    ...

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Galmac.4680 said:
    Hey,

    the meta achievement for "Shadow in the ice" requires 37 achievements, and if you skip the strike mission achievements, you will get 30 of them. So, how can a normal player without raid experience get 7 other achievements from that list to get the meta achievement? I tried strike missions, but with pug groups it was a sure fail. Why are that new strike missions that hard?

    Galmac

    This "only raiders can get these achievements" rhetoric is as false as it is played out.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    Conversely, not catering to a huge majority of players is also bad for a game.

    Pretend people make the biggest crowds.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Bad for the game is to try to "move" players to parts of the game they do not find fun to play, in ways, players would feel "forced" to. Anet tried this in the past and failed.

    The Daily system is 100% about moving players to parts of the game they do not find fun. Jumping Puzzles, Activities such as Sanctum Sprint, events in lowbie zones.... the list goes on. It's express purpose is to do exactly what you are are arguing against.
    No one logs in and says "boy a sure wish I could grab my level 80 go to Metrica and zerg with 76 other people to screw low level people out of their levelling with our mount engages".
    No one logs in hoping they can find a full group of players playing Crab Toss.

    Anet's never been shy about gating things like Legendary Weapons behind WvW or a mount behind a currency grind. I forget the last time there was a collection I wanted to do that didn't involve World Bosses....I think world bosses are the absolute worst content this game has to offer.

    Your argument is just more false rhetoric.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Blocki.4931 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    the playerbase as a whole needs to get better.

    Why? Because you say so?

    Because the game shouldn't be balanced around people who deal 2k DPS because they probably click their skills, use Soldier gear and never use their utility skills.

    Why? Because you say so?

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not (10-players) instanced group content.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

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

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    Ironically this games "massive" open world content is the area where the least organized interaction takes place. It's the actual single player part of this game.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    Ofc meta achievement and achievement from strikes should be splitted, ofc strike achievements better put in separate tab, like raids, and get normal player don't check these tab at all.
    But it is to late. Let hope the strike achiv's will be nerfed after few month and problem will be solved.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Bad for the game is to try to "move" players to parts of the game they do not find fun to play, in ways, players would feel "forced" to. Anet tried this in the past and failed.

    The Daily system is 100% about moving players to parts of the game they do not find fun. Jumping Puzzles, Activities such as Sanctum Sprint, events in lowbie zones.... the list goes on. It's express purpose is to do exactly what you are are arguing against.

    The idea of the 3-of-12 daily is to give players the freedom of choice. Is this perfect? No. Should there be more choices? Probably. If Anet would wanted to "force" players into things they do not find fun with this, Anet would have removed the choice and the daily would be only 3-of-3.

    Anet's never been shy about gating things like Legendary Weapons behind WvW or a mount behind a currency grind.

    It was not about what Anet is not shy about, but about whats good/bad for the game.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Dante.1508Dante.1508 Member ✭✭✭

    So glad Achievements are meaningless to me.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you. Umbasa.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you. Umbasa.

  • Yesterday i was farming sanctifier doing only pugs, i joined every group i could find in the lfg, guess how many failed? 0 and most were gold rewarded.
    Strikes are for normal players, the toxic casuals on this board are spreading a false narrative to try to hurt 10 man content not because of any inherent problems, but because they dislike the idea of it.
    Does this mean strikes are perfect? Heck no, we do not even known if boneskinner is fixed. Whisper needs a butter screen if you are chained. And it probably needs a token system so you can bypass the rng reward system, like dungeons, fractals, and raids.
    But these are fixable, and make the strike experience better, and do what they are suppose too, ease people into raids. Probably that why we have all this toxicity towards strikes, because they might actually work, and raids might become popular again.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to but rather only want other players to play the same game as you as to feel part of a bigger game world. We seem to have a different approach to MMORPGs.

    You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds. That would obviously not be available to the single player approach with this game.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

  • @Nagiil.1230 said:
    Its easy to say "Get better at the game."

    I arrive at 7pm at home after work ... play with the kids ... dinner ... then I have 1,5 hours for playing.
    Doing dailies, home instance, some APs, key farm, ... and then strike missions.

    My experience with the strikes:
    1st try: waiting ~10 mins for public group .... start, PUG wipe at ~60%
    2nd try, same group: wipe at ~50%, left group
    doing some other thing in GW
    3rd try, waiting für 15min for enough people ... boss ice shard is not there (bug).
    That means 30-45mins for nothing.
    Same thing has repeated for ~4 days and now I have given up strikes.

    (sorry for qqing)

    Tbf. if you only have 1,5 hours to play each day, raids (and maybe strikes, considering that they are meant as a stepping stone into raids) probably arent meant for you. I dont mean that in a bad way. Theres probably still a lot of stuff you can do.
    That being said, the strikes are really easy. Id suggest joining a group over the lfg though. Public is... its... it hurts. If theres no group up you might want to wait for like 5 minutes or make your own. They fill really fast. I hope that helps you and you give them another chance.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you. Umbasa.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    You can't be serious. You have obviously never attempted any challenging group content beyond a random player open world approach. The mere necessity for more organization leads to the development of communities. Best proof: there is multiple discords frequented by thousands of players in relation to raid content for example. How many open world discords are there?

    I'm saying challenging content leads to players having to create communities out of necessity. Solo open world content does not. Obviously applying the solo open world approach to this type of content will not see the development of communities. It;s the players who go beyond this superficial approach which are rewarded.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    The titenforging system was one of THE universally accepted worst gearing decisions and systems ever designed. It's rather telling Blizzard has gone back on that system. But please, do make mention of more terrible rng systems in other games trying to make a point.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    Yes, and the guilds I am in still do them, with their members. I do agree though that guild missions overall did not achieve the goal they were likely set out to do: get more people to find a guild and others to play together with. That's my opinion though.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.

    Yes, I was talking about the initial years of raids, not the current state. I was challenging your comment that:"this was obvious from the start". Which is plain untrue.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    Sure, that might be.

    I'll repeat what I said though: the fact the devs are trying to hold on to this content is rather telling that they feel it is necessary.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    You can't be serious. You have obviously never attempted any challenging group content beyond a random player open world approach. The mere necessity for more organization leads to the development of communities. Best proof: there is multiple discords frequented by thousands of players in relation to raid content for example. How many open world discords are there?

    I'm saying challenging content leads to players having to create communities out of necessity. Solo open world content does not. Obviously applying the solo open world approach to this type of content will not see the development of communities. It;s the players who go beyond this superficial approach which are rewarded.

    I've raided in many games. Mostly in WoW during BC and WotLK and GW2.
    Tequatl and TT created communities that are still active today. I'm not sure which game you're playing.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    The titenforging system was one of THE universally accepted worst gearing decisions and systems ever designed. It's rather telling Blizzard has gone back on that system. But please, do make mention of more terrible rng systems in other games trying to make a point.

    Yeah, it was a bad system, but that doesn't matter in this context. It made clear however that most people don't raid out of fun in that game. They are just in it for the rewards.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    Yes, and the guilds I am in still do them, with their members. I do agree though that guild missions overall did not achieve the goal they were likely set out to do: get more people to find a guild and others to play together with. That's my opinion though.

    After leading enough guild missions, I've grown tired of them. They are always the same. If you do something often enough, no matter how much fun it is, after a while it starts to get boring if nothing changes.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.

    Yes, I was talking about the initial years of raids, not the current state. I was challenging your comment that:"this was obvious from the start". Which is plain untrue.

    "This was obvious from the start" was about SMs not being able to save raids. Of course the initial time was successful, Anet gated a unique tier set behind certain content.

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    Sure, that might be.

    I'll repeat what I said though: the fact the devs are trying to hold on to this content is rather telling that they feel it is necessary.

    It is also rather telling how much resources go into raids at the moment. I think it's only natural to not want effort to go to waste, no matter if the actual result was worth it.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you. Umbasa.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    You can't be serious. You have obviously never attempted any challenging group content beyond a random player open world approach. The mere necessity for more organization leads to the development of communities. Best proof: there is multiple discords frequented by thousands of players in relation to raid content for example. How many open world discords are there?

    I'm saying challenging content leads to players having to create communities out of necessity. Solo open world content does not. Obviously applying the solo open world approach to this type of content will not see the development of communities. It;s the players who go beyond this superficial approach which are rewarded.

    I've raided in many games. Mostly in WoW during BC and WotLK and GW2.
    Tequatl and TT created communities that are still active today. I'm not sure which game you're playing.

    Wait, the 2 most difficult world bosses created communities? Are you trying to make my point for me? Along those lines, TT is abandoned UNLESS done via a semi organized group. TT has been nerfed far enough for players to catch on fast enough.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    The titenforging system was one of THE universally accepted worst gearing decisions and systems ever designed. It's rather telling Blizzard has gone back on that system. But please, do make mention of more terrible rng systems in other games trying to make a point.

    Yeah, it was a bad system, but that doesn't matter in this context. It made clear however that most people don't raid out of fun in that game. They are just in it for the rewards.

    That has nothing to do with what I stated: you don't get endgame rewards in easy content. On the contrary, the system you mentioned was in part so despised because it shifted end game rewards away from the players and into a rng system. I fail to see how this disproves what I stated. Overall all MMORPGs gate endgame rewards behind the highest games content.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    Yes, and the guilds I am in still do them, with their members. I do agree though that guild missions overall did not achieve the goal they were likely set out to do: get more people to find a guild and others to play together with. That's my opinion though.

    After leading enough guild missions, I've grown tired of them. They are always the same. If you do something often enough, no matter how much fun it is, after a while it starts to get boring if nothing changes.

    Which does not disprove that communities form around group content which they will complete together. Yet playing this game as a single player game will yield no success or reward.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.

    Yes, I was talking about the initial years of raids, not the current state. I was challenging your comment that:"this was obvious from the start". Which is plain untrue.

    "This was obvious from the start" was about SMs not being able to save raids. Of course the initial time was successful, Anet gated a unique tier set behind certain content.

    That was unclear. Then I misunderstood. As far as the success or failure of strikes, since I don't have Arenanet metrics, I'd refrain from making judgement calls just yet.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    Sure, that might be.

    I'll repeat what I said though: the fact the devs are trying to hold on to this content is rather telling that they feel it is necessary.

    It is also rather telling how much resources go into raids at the moment. I think it's only natural to not want effort to go to waste, no matter if the actual result was worth it.

    Telling to you, seems to me you have given up on content which you never participated in, while the developers have not.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    You can't be serious. You have obviously never attempted any challenging group content beyond a random player open world approach. The mere necessity for more organization leads to the development of communities. Best proof: there is multiple discords frequented by thousands of players in relation to raid content for example. How many open world discords are there?

    I'm saying challenging content leads to players having to create communities out of necessity. Solo open world content does not. Obviously applying the solo open world approach to this type of content will not see the development of communities. It;s the players who go beyond this superficial approach which are rewarded.

    I've raided in many games. Mostly in WoW during BC and WotLK and GW2.
    Tequatl and TT created communities that are still active today. I'm not sure which game you're playing.

    Wait, the 2 most difficult world bosses created communities? Are you trying to make my point for me? Along those lines, TT is abandoned UNLESS done via a semi organized group. TT has been nerfed far enough for players to catch on fast enough.

    I've never said I dislike group content. I dislike instanced content. Seems you're trying to spin things in wrong ways.

    Edit: I've also never said I dislike difficult content. You're the one pushing the "Open world is single player gameplay"- narrative, not me. So how do the big world bosses fit into that?

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    The titenforging system was one of THE universally accepted worst gearing decisions and systems ever designed. It's rather telling Blizzard has gone back on that system. But please, do make mention of more terrible rng systems in other games trying to make a point.

    Yeah, it was a bad system, but that doesn't matter in this context. It made clear however that most people don't raid out of fun in that game. They are just in it for the rewards.

    That has nothing to do with what I stated: you don't get endgame rewards in easy content. On the contrary, the system you mentioned was in part so despised because it shifted end game rewards away from the players and into a rng system. I fail to see how this disproves what I stated. Overall all MMORPGs gate endgame rewards behind the highest games content.

    The system was despised because players could RNG their way into higher itemlvl tiers. Players doing easy content could just get heroic titanforged equipment, so not many people bothered with the higher difficulties. They were only raiding for the rewards, not out of fun.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    Yes, and the guilds I am in still do them, with their members. I do agree though that guild missions overall did not achieve the goal they were likely set out to do: get more people to find a guild and others to play together with. That's my opinion though.

    After leading enough guild missions, I've grown tired of them. They are always the same. If you do something often enough, no matter how much fun it is, after a while it starts to get boring if nothing changes.

    Which does not disprove that communities form around group content which they will complete together. Yet playing this game as a single player game will yield no success or reward.

    ???
    Like I said, I've nothing against group content, just instanced content.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.

    Yes, I was talking about the initial years of raids, not the current state. I was challenging your comment that:"this was obvious from the start". Which is plain untrue.

    "This was obvious from the start" was about SMs not being able to save raids. Of course the initial time was successful, Anet gated a unique tier set behind certain content.

    That was unclear. Then I misunderstood. As far as the success or failure of strikes, since I don't have Arenanet metrics, I'd refrain from making judgement calls just yet.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    Sure, that might be.

    I'll repeat what I said though: the fact the devs are trying to hold on to this content is rather telling that they feel it is necessary.

    It is also rather telling how much resources go into raids at the moment. I think it's only natural to not want effort to go to waste, no matter if the actual result was worth it.

    Telling to you, seems to me you have given up on content which you never participated in, while the developers have not.

    Seems to me you don't properly read. I've raided in the past, like previously stated, but it's always nice to see baseless assumptions. I'm just sharing a common sentiment a lot of players have. Is it that strange to you, that people may have a different opinion on things, after having tried it out?

    https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/04/the-daily-grind-do-you-avoid-mmorpg-raiding-and-why/

    https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/06/vague-patch-notes-if-people-arent-raiding-in-an-mmo-its-not-because-its-too-hard/

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you. Umbasa.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Shadowmoon.7986 said:
    Strikes are for normal players.

    So is every other content in the game, including PvP, WvW and Raids. But this does not mean that all players have fun playing all of this content.

    Not everything in this game will appeal to all players. Catering rewards to each individual’s preferences to what they find fun is bad for the game.

    I disagree.

    Some examples:

    The daily achievements give players a wide range of choices, how they want to do them. You have the three game types PvP, WvW and PvE and in every game type you have 4 achievements you can choose from. So you can choose 3 achievements of this 12 achievements to get the daily achievment done and this will probably cater to the individual’s preferences of most players.

    In past episodes there were PvP and WvW reward tracks, so PvP and WvW players could get the rewards from the map-story-meta with this reward track or by doing the meta-achievement. So players had the freedom of choice with this.

    This is/was not bad for the game.

    Bad for the game is to try to "move" players to parts of the game they do not find fun to play, in ways, players would feel "forced" to. Anet tried this in the past and failed.

    It is Ok, if you have to do raids to get raid achievements or to do strike missions to get strike mission achievements, etc. But this discussion is not about raid or strike mission achievements, but about an open-world/map/story meta achievment.

    This doesn’t apply to what I specifically said: individual’s personal preferences on what they find fun.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    That would be the correct question and answer, if strike missions would be solo content and not 10-players instanced group content.

    This is a MMORPG. Single player games are -> way.

    "Massively Multiplayer" is only the open world (PvE) and WvW in GW2, 10 players instanced content like strike missions, is not "Massively Multiplayer".

    The fact that instance scaling and player numbers were reduced in GW2 from where they originally where for MMORPGs (instanced content started as raid like content, dungeons were not available in the first MMORPGs to great extent) does not remove the aspect that this party content takes in this game type. Yes, GW2 requires even less players than most other MMORPGs for its instanced content, yet the necessity to organize and cooperate is shared with nearly all other MMORPGs.

    If at all it just paints an even sadder picture of this player base if even with reduced player necessity for instanced content, compared to rival games, players are incapable grouping in order to overcome challenges.

    I like raids, but raids are and were never a core-part or building-block of GW2, they came very late to GW2 and are still niche content and are not a success (thats why Anet made strike missions to get more players into raiding).

    Games with 10-man-instanced content as the main focus are -> way.

    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    MMORPGs are NOT single player games where a lot of players do their own thing in the same spot, even if a lot of content in some games has devolved into this approach (mostly to grab as many players as possible for money purposes). Pretty much all successful MMORPGs at least on some level, usually endgame content, stick to the grouping and cooperation aspect to forge communities, bind players to social groups and enhance the gaming experience by having players cooperate.

    So my point remains: if you want single player game content, play a single player game, but don't complain that a MMORPG encourages or even requires multiple players to cooperate.

    There's cooperation in the open world, even if you try to deny it. The interesting thing about MMORPGs to me, and many others, has always been a persistant open world with a massive amounts of players. The feel of the world moving and living around you, even when you're not actively participating.

    What you find interesting is not my concern. I was referring to the origins of MMORPGs and how players interact and cooperate in those. The fact you get some passive boons and effects by tanding near other players is hardly cooperating. That could be achieved via NPCs as well.

    There are a lot of mechanics in the open world, it's not only about boons and effects. I couldn't care less about the origins of MMORPGs. I mean, sure, we could just add upgrading gear systems or a vertical gear progression. After all the original MMORPGs had those. Most players interacted in an open world, not in raids, even in those old MMORPGs. But I guess your own feelings are clouding your sight.

    and yet, context of where a word and game type come from matters, does it not? Most players participate in open world content without actively interacting with others, true. I do too when I do world bosses. I might even join a squad to get on the correct map, without as much as saying a single word. If that is the type of interaction you fancy from a MMORPG, sure you can have that here. But please don't pretend as though that constitutes player cooperation.

    Same thing can be said about SMs and raids when everyone knows what to do. Not actually interacting with others, just doing the mechanics. Is it the fault of the game? I'm not sure it would be good if a game forced someone to talk. I just talk to others freely, without being forced, and make friends that way. Don't pretend talking about mechanics creates communities.

    You can't be serious. You have obviously never attempted any challenging group content beyond a random player open world approach. The mere necessity for more organization leads to the development of communities. Best proof: there is multiple discords frequented by thousands of players in relation to raid content for example. How many open world discords are there?

    I'm saying challenging content leads to players having to create communities out of necessity. Solo open world content does not. Obviously applying the solo open world approach to this type of content will not see the development of communities. It;s the players who go beyond this superficial approach which are rewarded.

    I've raided in many games. Mostly in WoW during BC and WotLK and GW2.
    Tequatl and TT created communities that are still active today. I'm not sure which game you're playing.

    Wait, the 2 most difficult world bosses created communities? Are you trying to make my point for me? Along those lines, TT is abandoned UNLESS done via a semi organized group. TT has been nerfed far enough for players to catch on fast enough.

    I've never said I dislike group content. I dislike instanced content. Seems you're trying to interpret things in wrong ways.

    Instanced content is Arenanets way of separating challenging content from casual open world content. Given past reactions of this community on more challenging open world content (or anywhere outside of instanced content), I doubt this is going to change. So going with your preference would literally mean this game would receive no challenging content at all. Sure, that's also an approach.

    I fail to see how this factors into what I said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    You are missing the point. A central aspect of MMORPGs was, and always has been, the necessity for multiple players to work together to achieve goals. This is not about how many players are on map, in an instance or in a party. It's about an approach to content and gameplay. The main deviation here over the years is the accessibility for solo players.

    You seem to have lost track of what this argument is about. It's about challenging content forcing players to cooperate. I did not limit this notion to instanced content. I did apply this to the developers approach in this game, given they make instanced content challenging and leave open world content very easy.

    This goes back to me arguing that rewards are locked behind players having to get better. This has nothing to do with a players preference for instanced content or not. You literally just came up with that.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    MMORPGs are also NOT lobby-based games. Instances and Raids killed socializing in various games, reducing it to a simple "hi" and "ty". The successful MMOs noticed that only a minority actually play instanced content on the highest difficulty, that's why they added low difficulties where "cooperation" is barely needed. There's no community to be found there, just players wanting to finish the dungeon / raid asap to get their gear.

    True, that's why most past MMORPGs did not have dungeons, but rather dungeon like areas which merely required loading into a different zone, sometimes requiring different amounts of people, but always a groups or even squad sized player count.

    MMORPGs were never single player, I never have to interact or socialize with any other player, type of affairs, even if GW2s open world lends its self to this approach. That's a very unqiue development specifically in this player base.

    Ah yes, so instanced content, where the open world is nothing more than a big lobby.
    It's not specific to this player base. Just look at other big MMOs like WoW or FFXIV. You just sit there and wait for raids or use the LFR systems. You don't even need anyone else to reach max lvl.

    Sure, but you also don't get endgame rewards in those games for doing the easy group content now do you?

    You actually do get endgame rewards for a lot of stuff in other games, not only raiding. If I learned one thing from the titanforging system from WoW, it is that people don't raid to have fun, but to get better gear. Once you could get better gear from easier raids, most just stopped doing raids. Pretty telling now, is it?

    The titenforging system was one of THE universally accepted worst gearing decisions and systems ever designed. It's rather telling Blizzard has gone back on that system. But please, do make mention of more terrible rng systems in other games trying to make a point.

    Yeah, it was a bad system, but that doesn't matter in this context. It made clear however that most people don't raid out of fun in that game. They are just in it for the rewards.

    That has nothing to do with what I stated: you don't get endgame rewards in easy content. On the contrary, the system you mentioned was in part so despised because it shifted end game rewards away from the players and into a rng system. I fail to see how this disproves what I stated. Overall all MMORPGs gate endgame rewards behind the highest games content.

    The system was despised because players could RNG their way into higher itemlvl tiers. Players doing easy content could just get heroic titanforged equipment, so not many people bothered with the higher difficulties. They were only raiding for the rewards, not out of fun.

    Yes, I still fail to see how this disproves what I said:
    MMORPGs lock rewards behind highest endgame content. Want to try again?

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    His point also remains: If you want lobby based co-op content, play lobby co-op games. Complaining about players not wanting to do certain content and leading them to other games is just gatekeeping.

    I was not the one to bring up group content. I merely mentioned that in just about any game, even MMORPGs, the usual approach to getting challenging content rewards was getting better at the game. Here I'll quote myself:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    The answer to any question related to:
    "How do I get rewards locked behind challenging content?"

    is similar across most any game, it's usually:
    "Get better at the game.

    You can disagree with this notion and demand as many rewards as possible be not gated behind skill, that does not change the fact though that skill very often does factor into reward availability.

    You brought up group content simply by stating "MMOS are not a single-player" games. You yourself linked "challenge" to group content and coordination. I'm all for difficult content, sadly the own skill doesn't really translate well into group content. I mean, a skilled group could just carry you, even though you're the worst player in the game. There's something wrong when the difficulty doesn't come from the actual game, but instead from grouping.

    That's where you and I disagree. I see grouping and community, be it guilds, friends, active cooperation, etc. as corner concepts of a MMORPG. You seem not to. You said it yourself, a skilled group could easily carry anyone through any content. I'm sure there is quite a few players who have guilds helping them out, we certainly do in some of my more casual guilds.

    I see grouping as a cornerstone of MMORPGs, just not grouping up for some lobby-based systems that isolate you from the massive world. I loved guild missions, being able to cooperate with other guilds in the open world. But Anet then added the option to instance them and even stopped developing them.

    Yes, and the guilds I am in still do them, with their members. I do agree though that guild missions overall did not achieve the goal they were likely set out to do: get more people to find a guild and others to play together with. That's my opinion though.

    After leading enough guild missions, I've grown tired of them. They are always the same. If you do something often enough, no matter how much fun it is, after a while it starts to get boring if nothing changes.

    Which does not disprove that communities form around group content which they will complete together. Yet playing this game as a single player game will yield no success or reward.

    ???
    Like I said, I've nothing against group content, just instanced content.

    Which is not the issue here. Never has been.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Also it doesn't matter, Anet already said raid participation is low. SMs won't change that. It was obvious from the start that would happen. Instanced content is just not good for a massive amount of players.

    Actually, that is untrue. Arenanet were rather surprised about the participation in raids at the beginning and throughout of HoT. So from that angle, your statement is untrue. Raids were very successful in the first few years. It is not until rather recently that raids have started struggling, around the time of PoF, which can also be a result of lack of developer attention to this content.

    I'd rather see it the other way around: raids used to be populated enough in the past and the recent strike implementation shows that the developers are trying to get back to that state. Otherwise they would have simply shelved instanced content all together.

    It's true, just look at the post from Andew Gray: "the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.".
    Raids used to be populated because people played them for the rewards, namely the legendary armor. After getting that many just stopped bothering with them. Speaks volumes to me about whether they deemed it fun.

    Yes, I was talking about the initial years of raids, not the current state. I was challenging your comment that:"this was obvious from the start". Which is plain untrue.

    "This was obvious from the start" was about SMs not being able to save raids. Of course the initial time was successful, Anet gated a unique tier set behind certain content.

    That was unclear. Then I misunderstood. As far as the success or failure of strikes, since I don't have Arenanet metrics, I'd refrain from making judgement calls just yet.

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    SMs are just a band aid fix they're trying to use to get people to raid, so that all the work put into them doesn't go to waste.

    Sure, that might be.

    I'll repeat what I said though: the fact the devs are trying to hold on to this content is rather telling that they feel it is necessary.

    It is also rather telling how much resources go into raids at the moment. I think it's only natural to not want effort to go to waste, no matter if the actual result was worth it.

    Telling to you, seems to me you have given up on content which you never participated in, while the developers have not.

    Seems to me you don't properly read. I've raided in the past, like previously stated, but it's always nice to see baseless assumptions. I'm just sharing a common sentiment a lot of players have. Is it that strange to you, that people may have a different opinion on things, after having tried it out?

    https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/04/the-daily-grind-do-you-avoid-mmorpg-raiding-and-why/

    https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/06/vague-patch-notes-if-people-arent-raiding-in-an-mmo-its-not-because-its-too-hard/

    Those articles only confirm that the developers are actively trying to enable players to take on instanced content.

    Also you might want to take a look at those comment sections. Seems to me the second article is an opinion piece not shared by pretty much EVERY person in the comments. So, if it's an article based on an opinion, which is not shared among a vocal part of the readership, of how much value is the article? Or better yet, of how much objective value is it besides an additional opinion not worth more than yours or mine?

    EDIT:
    Looked through the second article again. It literally IS an opinion piece with 0, absolutely 0 facts or data to support the opinion. Which is fine, it's an opinion after all but let's also treat it as such.