Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@"Cyninja.2954" said:So yes, raids might not make sense to see any further development now, but that doesn't mean in an alternate timeline with a different amount of support, they would have ended where they are now. That's true ... maybe in parrallel universe #43443678, the outcome would be different. But we aren't in that universe, we are in this one. And in THIS one, I believe raids as they were offered in this game was inconsistent with the way customers expect content. There isn't any 'hubris' here ... Unless raids were a loss leader, why is it so unreasonable to believe their decline was due to financial reasons? There isn't anything uncommon or unreasonable about businesses making decisions about products and services because of the revenue and profit they generate ... but somehow in THIS instance, I'm being told it's a ridiculous notion. SURE. Because unlike the fact that you want to igbore many aspects pertaining to raids, there a many issues which had detrimental effects on the games population and content out side of raids.You can ignore those, which is fine, but shows heavy bias on your side.I mean, what mistake do we think Anet is making here? That stopping raid development is a bad idea? Based on what? Someone's idea that they were really 'successful' some time in the past? People drawing poor conclusions based on cherrypicked examples? None of that makes sense. Talking past mistakes.Also that "idea" was backed up by official announcements made. Which are of far more factual value than your speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.You said it yourself, unless you have access to the correct data to backup your OPINION, you are runnikg on fumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? That's not really the question here. I mean, NO one has data, so everyone is running on fumes. That's a little disingenuous to make that accusation ONLY to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Vinceman.4572 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids. Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases. No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago. I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good. Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around. The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind. Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with. consistencyinofferingsFortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite. Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing. I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids. Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.If you actually limited your assumption and argument to: raids are not successful enough NOW, that would cut out a lot of the subjective nonsense.The measure of success is the official quote and the fact that raids were supported for 4 years (and even now 10 player content sees desperate support from the devs). Which torpedos your argument that raids were not successful ebough, since after all, if the developers decided to support them, they must have been financially viable enough, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Vinceman.4572 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids. Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases. No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago. I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good. Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around. The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind. Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with. consistencyinofferingsFortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite. Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing. I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids. Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't knowHold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.It also does not account for the fact that raid issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.I'm sorry, unless you decide to actually provide some facts to base your assumption on, which support this assumption all the way back to raid releases. All we have to go on is release cadence, long time continued support and past official statements on this subject. All of which can be layed out according to a persons subjective opinion, but definately not in strong support of your thesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids? I don't see it. What I believe can coexist with the fact that people adopted raids at the beginning. I think people got bored or frustrated with it because it's not the reason they adopted GW2. It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either. I mean, I will flip that back at you ... if ALL parts of the game are in equal decline, and Anet made the strongest development pullback on raids ... what does that tell you about how successful raids are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Vinceman.4572 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids. Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases. No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago. I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good. Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around. The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind. Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with. consistencyinofferingsFortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite. Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing. I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids. Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't knowHold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow. No, you are wrong and been wrong multiple times. We can't follow cause you swap oh it's about this then it's about that. It's about raids being small population or raids aren't a money maker or w/e you decide to change it too too keep arguing. Raids are a small population because they are challenging and require effort and time and the possibility of changing your build to suit the needs of the group but the game is 90 percent casual so hence small population. But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids? If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles. It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either. So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids? If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles. It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.Sure ... and now they aren't. but that doesn't conflict with my point because I'm not claiming people wouldn't adopt raids, I'm saying how they were offered was not inline iwth why people adopted the game. the fact they were successful for a few years and now they aren't just indicates to me the population doesn't support it ... for the very reasonable idea I have why.@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either. So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue.What I said doesn't conflict with the fact that raids used to be successful. I mean, I will flip that back at you ... if ALL parts of the game are in equal decline, and Anet made the strongest development pullback on raids ... what does that tell you about how successful raids are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Vinceman.4572 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids. Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases. No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago. I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good. Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around. The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind. Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with. consistencyinofferingsFortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite. Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing. I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids. Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't knowHold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow. But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like thoseAnd the fact that Anet has pulled back development on raids should tell you something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't any ignoring and to be fair, this thread IS a speculative exercise so ...It's COMPLETELY REASONABLE to believe that raids aren't successful in this game because of reasons rooted in how the content was offered and ultimately leading to financials. Don't be like others and blame Anet through some complicated web of their actions for attempting to commit corporate suicide ... that's nonsense. I think it's much simpler than that; people didn't adopt GW2 for raids in the way Anet offered them. It just doesn't have the right player profile to support the raid content. If it did, we would have seen Anet maintain the raid release schedule. Sure, but that still does not in any way explain why raids were very successful in the beginning.Does it need to? and if it does, what are we measuring success by here? Yes it does, because your entire arugument so far has been: raids were not succesful.No, that is NOT my entire argument ... not at all. My entire argument is that raids have a low population because how raids were offered was not inline with why most people originally adopted the game. That theory still does not hold up with the first few years of raid participation.Really? Based on what? That people adopted raids? What is it about what I'm saying that conflicts with the fact that people did raids? If you are going to willfully keep forgetting that raids were OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL every time you want to willfully forget, this is going to keep going in circles. It does not matter if raids were originally not in the plans. If they were introduced and considered successful, they obviously clicked with a sufficient part of the players base.@Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:It also does not account for the fact that rais issues and decline go hand in hand with decline in other parts of the game (which can indicate that the game overall faced issues), as well as other issues which were mentioned.I'm not making any claims to why other parts of the game are in decline and I don't see why I have to in order to believe my position either. So you are deciding to not look at simultaneous player decline in other parts of the game, which could point to an overall decline in game wide player population, only to hold on to your point?Doesn't seems like a good argument to me. But hey, if you want to selectively argue and omit issues, sure. Would explain a lot of your views and arguments on this issue.What I said doesn't conflict with the fact that raids used to be successful. Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons. We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:raids used to be successful enoughstuff happenedraids are not longer successful enoughand that's the full extent one can say for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Vinceman.4572 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@maddoctor.2738 said:@Obtena.7952 said:We are simply talking about why we think raids have such a small audience. I think it's because the game's original audience didn't adopt the game because of raids. Which doesn't explain why they were successful, as proven by developer comments about their success, and their intent to have faster releases. No it doesn't ... but that's not the question anyways.It IS the question. You claimed that raids weren't successful because the original audience didn't adopt the game because of Raids, if that was the case Raids would've failed a long time ago. I get it ... you want to show they were, at some point, successful to justify that Anet ruined your game experience by doing something bad to something good. Because it's a fact that it was good and Anet ruined the experience by their inconsistent cadence and failed release schedule?The fact remains that if raids met ROI target, they would still be around. The fact remains that if raids didn't meet the ROI target they would've failed a long time ago. Also the fact remains that content can miss their target by decisions that have nothing to do with it. Like scheduling/delay issues. You think the content drought before Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? You think the lack of episodes after the release of Heart of Thorns played no role in the revenue of the game? If you do, that's awesome, but far away from reality. Was it the fault of Season 2 that revenue dropped during the content drought between it and Heart of Thorns. Delays hurt I'm not sure how can this be disputed.Seems you think Anet purposefully trashed raids inspite of themselves Because all facts indicate that they did. Delaying the release of a Raid wing by 3 full months, although it was ready, shows us that.Of course, that's nonsense to someone like you with an axe to grind. Of course scheduling issues and delays mean nothing to someone with such a passion against Raids to begin with. consistencyinofferingsFortunately Anet doesn't follow that, otherwise we'd still have one-time events, as that was their way of offering content.Sure, if you say so. I'm really just at the point where I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying anyways. Hopefully you find a way to get past your unhappiness about the game instead of thinking blaming Anet or ignoring how things work is going to fix something. Raids are being throttled back and that's not because Anet loves to not make money or give things to people they want. It's a business reason and a huge factor in business reasons is related to revenues and profits. I know you talked yourself into the fact that Raids were this big money-printing machine for Anet in GW2 ... I see no evidence of that. The fact that raids throttled back suggests the opposite. Raids weren't the money printing-machince but they were (still are but in a smaller scale) a solid part of the game that kept enough players playing. I don't know that and neither do you. But you know who does? Anet ... and if that were true ... we will still have raids. I'm not lying here: if the ROI was there, we would still have raids. Then why would they add strikes to try and encourage more players to raid. But hey you love being wrong and then going well even tho I don't have numbers I argue over and over but now I lose then well you don't have numbers so you can't knowHold on ... we are talking about why raids have small populations. The fact that Anet is introducing strike missions that may encourage people to raid doesn't disagree with anything I've said about why raids have small populations. Sorry, I'm not wrong, you just can't follow. But there are many small populations like PvP, dungeons and fractals meta finishers for maps too so their existence is justified just like thoseAnd the fact that Anet has pulled back development on raids should tell you something. Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. So that also counters the anet isn't consistent another point you use to continue this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Cyninja.2954 said:Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons. We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:raids used to be successful enoughstuff happenedraids are not longer successful enoughand that's the full extent one can say for sure.Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knowsYou don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning?Maybe you think this happened:ANet guy1: "hey guys, raids are successful"ANet guy2: "oh no, we better screw that up by ignoring it ... why would we want to have success!?!?!"ANet guy1: "Good plan!!!! We aren't here to make money. Let's see if we can sabotage the game!!"CHEERS ALL AROUND!!!!You don't like my reasonable, logical explanation so you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knowsYou don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready. You know damn right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons. We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:raids used to be successful enoughstuff happenedraids are not longer successful enoughand that's the full extent one can say for sure.Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening. I would never go that far. I personally think it was a combination of issues culminating in the results we see now (as is often the case):raids were tied to living world releases, which lead to issues in later stages, most notably wing 6 and 7 raid rewards past legendary armor failed to incentivize new players (I still don't understand why we have LD, but this suggests there was some plan for them when they got implemented)legendary armor its self causes serious issues within the game (I've always been open about the fact I believe legi armor is to cheap from a balance perspective). This is only so far related that the introduction of legendary armor in spvp and wvw would have increased these issues.side projects and less dedication to GW2 caused issues within the player base and lack of content (which might have perfectly made sense at the time from a studio perspective)overall player base decline due to for example lack of expansion (which again, might have made perfect sense at the time)very strong competitor expansions taking market share (yes, even these things will affect the game. Completely out of control of the devs)I wouldn't go as far as some who state that raids were murdered. That is a bit hyperbole born of frustration and trying to make a point (which might very well have been incorrect. We might be at this same stage with raids right now even if many of the other factors might not have occurred). I think they (the studio) had to take different steps at a time, and raids were part of the content which there was just not enough resources to go around to any longer based on decline it had seen from multiple factors (some not even raid related). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knowsYou don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready. You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post (I highlighted it for you) ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place? The only reason it's frustrating to talk to me is that I keep telling you what I'm saying and you keep talking about things that have no relation to it. You're so hellbent on proving me wrong, you don't want to consider why I think I'm right, even though you make statements above that show you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilora.9524 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knowsYou don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready. You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 @Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time. Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1: Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knowsYou don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready. You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do themOf course we are back to the original adopters ... do you believe that most of the people that experienced the first raid were people that WERE NOT original adopters of the game? That makes no sense. If you don't agree with that, then you have to believe that the majority of the people that did the first raids in the game and continued to sustain that content to make it successful joined the game when raids were announced/released ... Can you confirm such an unlikely event? That seems HIGHLY unlikely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now