Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience


Swagger.1459

Recommended Posts

@Jilora.9524 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would have had a healthier population and as a result, be be less sensitive to game changes, questionable decisions and schedules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying that you were right which didn't make sense when we couldn't prove either way like 70 comments ago. I still think you are wrong I just can't prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying ....

Again ... telling me what I'm saying ... NOT going to work for you. You want me to walk away based "hey we don't know because opinions" ... but then you want to end it with "hey you are wrong, I just can't prove it". Awesome. :astonished:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying ....

Again ... telling me what I'm saying ... NOT going to work for you. You want me to walk away based "hey we don't know because opinions" ... but then you want to end it with "hey you are wrong, I just can't prove it". Awesome. :astonished:

Last time I did I went and found what you said. I'm not doing that again and who knows maybe it was page 4 or another thread no idea I still think your wrong regardless of how I came up with it just can't prove it so even if you didn't say you were right the rest of the comment stands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying ....

Again ... telling me what I'm saying ... NOT going to work for you. You want me to walk away based "hey we don't know because opinions" ... but then you want to end it with "hey you are wrong, I just can't prove it". Awesome. :astonished:

Last time I did I went and found what you said. I'm not doing that again and who knows maybe it was page 4 or another thread no idea I still think your wrong regardless of how I came up with it just can't prove it so even if you didn't say you were right the rest of the comment stands

This thread is speculating why raids have a small population. There isn't anything 'wrong' with the idea that raids have a small population because of how they were offered to the people that originally adopted the game. The only problem here is that you want to dismiss a completely reasonable idea just because you don't believe it.

Actually the OTHER problem is that you keep telling me things I'm saying that I don't say and even worse, that I would never say, with the intention of trying to make it sound like I'm some kind of flake. Naughty Naughty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying ....

Again ... telling me what I'm saying ... NOT going to work for you. You want me to walk away based "hey we don't know because opinions" ... but then you want to end it with "hey you are wrong, I just can't prove it". Awesome. :astonished:

Last time I did I went and found what you said. I'm not doing that again and who knows maybe it was page 4 or another thread no idea I still think your wrong regardless of how I came up with it just can't prove it so even if you didn't say you were right the rest of the comment stands

This thread is speculating why raids have a small population. There isn't anything 'wrong' with the idea that raids have a small population because of how they were offered to the people that originally adopted the game. The only problem here is that you want to dismiss a completely reasonable idea just because you don't believe it.

And we gave many reasons and I disagree with that one that's all. Raids are presented as optional content wheter to original adopters or players joining after Hot or new players today. I can't see how optional content added at any time to any group is a reason it attracts a small audience. The size would remain small even if optional raids were there on release due to it not being casual friendly and overwhelming to most press 1 half afk open world player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop editing when I'm typing. No, you argue with many people so maybe your confused or I mixed it up idk. These threads are too long to sift thru to find out. I will try not to write unless I know for sure like the first time but as I said I hate scrolling up looking to confirm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my opinion the reasons why there are so few players playing raid, is that ArenaNet is still allowing the stupit dps-meter. raid has simply become so terribly toxic, full of players thinking they are better the rest of us, just curse they remember the full fight on a few bosses who always do the same thing, and then they think they are better then all the rest, in all aspects of the game. I personally stopped raiding before wing 4 was released, and have only briefly tried wing 4, and not been in wing 5-7 at all. and i will never come back as long as ArenaNet allows thet all-destroying dps meter, it should be banned, it's just a tool so small toxic elite kids have someone to point fingers at .. I'm so tired of random pug commanders that kick you random and then you ask why, and he then tells, you only do 25k dmg on a build that is benchmarked to do 28k+ and the raid community is so small, that if you do low dps, the commander remember, at dont take you next time. The dps meter is the only reason most people dont play raid, ArenaNet need to bann the dps meter, or eliminate the ability to monitor others, and only seeing their own dps would help a lot. people stay away from raid solo because of toxic elite player who only goes up in what a 3 party dps meter says, it's the only thing that matters to them, it's a tool that gives them people to point out and give blame. and for good measure, whether you have 10k -17k or 25k + dps. it only make the boss dies 5 seconds faster whit high dps. thats all, low dps players is fine in raid, the boss just get down a few seconds slover thats all. if arenanet remove the dps meter. alot of players will come back and new players will dare to try now .. banning the dps meter is the best thing to do for the raid community..

Quote : slow and steady wins the race!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gaf.6709" said:

in my opinion the reasons why there are so few players playing raid, is that ArenaNet is still allowing the stupit dps-meter. raid has simply become so terribly toxic, full of players thinking they are better the rest of us, just curse they remember the full fight on a few bosses who always do the same thing, and then they think they are better then all the rest, in all aspects of the game. I personally stopped raiding before wing 4 was released, and have only briefly tried wing 4, and not been in wing 5-7 at all. and i will never come back as long as ArenaNet allows thet all-destroying dps meter, it should be banned, it's just a tool so small toxic elite kids have someone to point fingers at .. I'm so tired of random pug commanders that kick you random and then you ask why, and he then tells, you only do 25k dmg on a build that is benchmarked to do 28k+ and the raid community is so small, that if you do low dps, the commander remember, at dont take you next time. The dps meter is the only reason most people dont play raid, ArenaNet need to bann the dps meter, or eliminate the ability to monitor others, and only seeing their own dps would help a lot. people stay away from raid solo because of toxic elite player who only goes up in what a 3 party dps meter says, it's the only thing that matters to them, it's a tool that gives them people to point out and give blame. and for good measure, whether you have 10k -17k or 25k + dps. it only make the boss dies 5 seconds faster whit high dps. thats all, low dps players is fine in raid, the boss just get down a few seconds slover thats all. if arenanet remove the dps meter. alot of players will come back and new players will dare to try now .. banning the dps meter is the best thing to do for the raid community..

Quote : slow and steady wins the race!

Except for the fact that everything you typed here is wrong. DPS meters were a blessing in disguise for a lot of classes and players to find out they weren't actually doing terrible in raids.

Remember what happened to every class that wasn't Elementalist in the first Era of raids when the first bench marks were released? Oh right you don't otherwise you wouldn't type what you just did so i'll explain it.

So in the beginning we only had a static golem to go by to get our first damage "benchmarks". Elementalist seemed to be ahead of the curve by a gigantic margin, literally talking 10k dps over the second class that came close. So what happened during raids to any dps player that wasn't an elementalist? They got kicked at the slightest sign of trouble in killing the boss.

Only to find out later when DPS meters were widely used that a lot of Ele players were actually doing horrible, horrible damage, and that Dragonhunter over there we used to kick out of raids in favor of Eles wasn't actually doing that bad. So it was an incredibly eye-opening experience for a lot of players and ushered in a new Era where people were actually judged on their performance and not discriminated against by the class they played. I know what sounds better to me...

P.s. Slow and steady might win a race, but actually doing damage and killing a boss in 4 minutes instead of 8 minutes also wins the race y'know. Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

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

That is exactly what you said

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

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

The irony is that my point still relevant in the second scenario ... if raids were offered in a way that appealed to original adopters, then even if they weren't the majority raider population, it would be likely that raids would be less sensitive to game changes and go into development pull back. Either way, I don't think I'm nonsensical or wrong.

No. Your aren't always nonsensical and wrong just you think you can never be wrong or at least seems that way. I stand by my reasons I think they failed 50 comments ago and you can stand by yours just don't think we can prove who's right either way.

Well, if you don't believe we can prove who's right, why are you telling me no and I'm wrong? That doesn't make sense.

Because you kept saying ....

Again ... telling me what I'm saying ... NOT going to work for you. You want me to walk away based "hey we don't know because opinions" ... but then you want to end it with "hey you are wrong, I just can't prove it". Awesome. :astonished:

Last time I did I went and found what you said. I'm not doing that again and who knows maybe it was page 4 or another thread no idea I still think your wrong regardless of how I came up with it just can't prove it so even if you didn't say you were right the rest of the comment stands

This thread is speculating why raids have a small population. There isn't anything 'wrong' with the idea that raids have a small population because of how they were offered to the people that originally adopted the game. The only problem here is that you want to dismiss a completely reasonable idea just because you don't believe it.

And we gave many reasons and I disagree with that one that's all. Raids are presented as optional content wheter to original adopters or players joining after Hot or new players today. I can't see how optional content added at any time to any group is a reason it attracts a small audience. The size would remain small even if optional raids were there on release due to it not being casual friendly and overwhelming to most press 1 half afk open world player base.

I can't see how content being optional is a reason either ... but if you are suggesting that optional factor is somehow part of my own reasoning for low populatoin, be assured it never even crossed my mind. Maybe you are just thinking out loud here, that's OK. It's worth exploring ideas with others. I mean, lots of PVE content is optional also ... but it's audience is arguably the largest in the game ... so being optional doesn't really make sense as a factor into why raids have a small audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

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

  • They were new.
  • They offered unique items.
  • Progress was blocked in obtaining max mastery level regardless of if you used them or not.

For example, I was progress blocked for years. I only go my first raid kill last year and I only got the game just before HOT came out.I have over 5,899 hours in the game and I have been playing for 4 and a half years. Which means for 3-4 years I did not have a boss kill which meant I kept going back until I got lucky enough to have some guy get cocky enough to prove you can take anything into a raid and anyone can pass and it isn't intimidating and that I should do them.

That same guy proved he was biased toward me because he made my boyfriend redo his entire dare devil build and make him hit 30k consistently on the training golem before taking him to get his done.

After all this, I haven't really been back into a raid since. I got my masteries and now I don't have a group to do it with because you can't just join anyone. I have made the builds to hit reasonable DPS, etc. but I still fear the community and nothing in there is worth dealing with the community that is there. I don't even like to join fractals full of jargon and BS that excludes people. I just want to get them done, I don't need a goddamn speed run.

Basically:The raiding community is shrinking.And people don't want to join it to keep it alive because the are shamed/feared out of it and the only way to become part of it is through training groups that force you to become as cookie cutter as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952" said:Raids suffered from lots of things and the primary reason IMO is the reason I keep telling you. I get you have a problem with how I said only ... get over it. It doesn't make my point any less relevant.

As Scarlet would say "Hooray for progress!" Btw I'm not a psychic, I respond to what is written.As for your actual "point", you already admitted that it doesn't explain the first 2 years of Raids. We have delays and bad schedules (and other things as already explained in page 1) that can justify the reduction in Raid population/popularity over time, while explaining the first 2 years, and another point, "not being consistent content offering" that doesn't... I can't change opinions so I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Raids suffered from lots of things and the primary reason IMO is the reason I keep telling you. I get you have a problem with how I said only ... get over it. It doesn't make my point any less relevant.

As Scarlet would say "Hooray for progress!" Btw I'm not a psychic, I respond to what is written.As for your actual "point", you already admitted that it doesn't explain the first 2 years of Raids.Legendary armor. That's it. A lot of "raiders" were never interested in raids in the first place. They were there only for the goodies. Once they got them, they quit, because the content itself was not fun for them.

Also, i think you put way too much value in that single "succesful" statement. Not only we don't know what they really meant by it then (because they were very, very vague), but Anet devs have been known to make very enthusiastic statements about their newest creations, that, in retrospect, we found, were perhaps way too enthusiastic, and didn't really match up to reality.

We have delays and bad schedules (and other things as already explained in page 1) that can justify the reduction in Raid population/popularity over time,Yes, but what i think you are missing is that the reduction would have happened anyway. There might have been some delays, but as far as we know, their actual release schedule wasn't any longer than their development schedule. Raid wings still did take them upward of 9 months to make on average. We just didn't see it initially, due to the very same development-release schedules mismatch you are blaming for later failures. And that was way, way too long for the raiding community.

In the end, raider disappointment was not due to Anet "failing" them. It was due to raiders having way too big expectations, that never matched reality. It's just that in the "raid honeymoon" period, the raiding community started to think that they're the most important part of the GW2 player community, so important to Anet, that whatever they'll ask of devs, they will get. Finding out that it's not true, that there are limits to this, and that thse limits are quite low at that, was a bucket of cold water. But, instead of making the community recognize reality for what it was, it caused many players to think of "betrayal" and "failure". Perhaps because the reality in which the raiders were not the golden children, and weren't the privileged part of the game community, was simply too harsh to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Astralporing.1957" said:They were there only for the goodies. Once they got them, they quit, because the content itself was not fun for them.

I'm sure those still running Silverwastes RIBA, those that exhausted AB ML and Istan ML and the champion train runners are doing it/ were doing it because it's the most fun for them and not because of the rewards. When is the last time you run Stepping Stones JP? Any of the Griffon or Beetle races? Adventures maybe? Have you been to living world Season 3 maps lately to see how deserted they are? Even those that are on the daily. Do you think those killing Drakkar nowadays are all there because it's the most exciting fight in the game or because it's new/achievements? I'm not sure how the "they were there for the goodies" argument applies only to Raids but if you say so it might.

Also, i think you put way too much value in that single "succesful" statement. Not only we don't know what they really meant by it then (because they were very, very vague), but Anet devs have been known to make very enthusiastic statements about their newest creations, that, in retrospect, we found, were perhaps way too enthusiastic, and didn't really match up to reality.

I don't put any value on that statement, but rather on the fact that even as late as summer 2018 they were promising faster releases.Also, the argument about Raids failing to attract population is only based on a single statement by Arenanet, which was also very very vague. How are you sure that the statement was about the actual popularity of Raids and not their attempt to lure players towards their new content? It wouldn't be the first time.

Yes, but what i think you are missing is that the reduction would have happened anyway. There might have been some delays, but as far as we know, their actual release schedule wasn't any longer than their development schedule. Raid wings still did take them upward of 9 months to make on average. We just didn't see it initially, due to the very same development-release schedules mismatch you are blaming for later failures. And that was way, way too long for the raiding community.

From the information we actually have it took them about 7 months to make a new Raid wing, while at the same time creating 1 new fractal in the in-between time. Which fits the initial statement of taking 5-6 months to make a Raid wing (and 1-3 months for a Fractal?)

In the end, raider disappointment was not due to Anet "failing" them. It was due to raiders having way too big expectations, that never matched reality.

Expecting a Raid wing every 5-6 months is unrealistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"hellsqueen.3045" said:The raiding community is shrinking.

Like the dungeon community... abandoning content does that.

But dungeon content is old and many of them didn't update well and they moved their focuses else where and it made sense to which stopped people from being interested, regardless of new blood joining. The amount of times there are stun bars on the bosses in those dungeons and then stuns just flat out work on them so the bosses practically never attack. They tried to update the bosses to match the new direction of the game and it didn't work out well for them and perhaps they tried to make it work but the design of that instanced content was too ingrained that they were better off abandoning and leaving them as they were and creating new types of dungeons for the largest aspect of their community, the max level players got fractals and it caused them to need to continue to grow their level via agony.

The raiding community is newer content and it is still shrinking, you need fresh players in order to keep up enough participation in order to put resources toward it.But the players are leaving and there aren't enough new ones taking place to justify putting resources toward it.

I would say that is the whole point of Strikes. To get players into Raids, by somewhat building their confidence.

  • Each Strike release is supposed to be harder than the last (like a fractal)
  • Each Strike is supposed to progressively reach toward the idea of raid style content

However, each strike uses bosses that inexperienced players have become familiar with throughout the story, so if they beat it in the story they get this confidence that "I did it once, I can do it again with a group of people."By making them familiar, it makes players more comfortable and if they don't succeed, there might be a higher chances of them wanting to work harder to defeat it and improving because they want to defeat this familiar thing again.Not to mention, if a handful of these new players that have enjoyed strikes but avoided raids find out that maybe the last strike of the story or W/E is now almost as hard as a raid, they might be more confident to approach raiding content which could result in new players joining the mode and justifying putting time and resources into raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hellsqueen.3045 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.

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

  • They were new.
  • They offered unique items.
  • Progress was blocked in obtaining max mastery level regardless of if you used them or not.

We are talking about over 2 years of successful implementation of content. Raids were not that new by then. Max level mastery was not required once fixed. Even then, there was/is a ton of very easy fights which allow players to get 1 kill. That does not reflect an overall interest in raids.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:For example, I was progress blocked for years. I only go my first raid kill last year and I only got the game just before HOT came out.I have over 5,899 hours in the game and I have been playing for 4 and a half years. Which means for 3-4 years I did not have a boss kill which meant I kept going back until I got lucky enough to have some guy get cocky enough to prove you can take anything into a raid and anyone can pass and it isn't intimidating and that I should do them.

Be honest:How much effort did you put in for actually getting into raids or playing the content? This sounds to me more as though you were not interested in the content and join a run by accident. That is perfectly fine, but please don't use this as an argument for difficult access. Unless you spent 4 years trying to get into raids, at which point I would try to understand what the limiting factors were in order to recommend how to approach this.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:That same guy proved he was biased toward me because he made my boyfriend redo his entire dare devil build and make him hit 30k consistently on the training golem before taking him to get his done.

I can't speak as to the "guy" and I certainly did not put such harsh restrictions on new players (though I always recommend players practice, and recommend easy classes), hitting 30k on a Daredevil on the golem is not really difficult or an amazing feat requirement. Half of that is pure auto attack, and the other half is using 2-3 skills every few seconds without even requiring weapon swapping. So while I disagree that such a requirement needs to be put up for training runs, I can't comment on why or how this transpired.

I would recommend though not to judge thousands of players based on a singular event.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:After all this, I haven't really been back into a raid since. I got my masteries and now I don't have a group to do it with because you can't just join anyone. I have made the builds to hit reasonable DPS, etc. but I still fear the community and nothing in there is worth dealing with the community that is there. I don't even like to join fractals full of jargon and BS that excludes people. I just want to get them done, I don't need a kitten speed run.

Again, honest question:How much have you actually tried finding a guild or getting into one? Once again, perfectly fine to not want to join or find other people to play with, but please be critical enough of what the actual reasons are. If 1 bad experience is all it takes for you to never want to raid, I'd question your actual desire to play this content, which directly means you are not the target audience, which is fine.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:Basically:The raiding community is shrinking.And people don't want to join it to keep it alive because the are shamed/feared out of it and the only way to become part of it is through training groups that force you to become as cookie cutter as everyone else.

Find better training groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"hellsqueen.3045" said:But dungeon content is old and the moved their focuses else where which stopped people from being interested, regardless of new blood joining.

Indeed. Just like they scrapped dungeons for fractals, they scrapped raids for strike missions. It's the same story all over again, when they want to redirect players towards their new content.

However, each strike uses bosses that inexperienced players have become familiar with throughout the story, so if they beat it in the story they get this confidence that "I did it once, I can do it again with a group of people."

The Icebrood Construct and the Fraenir of Jormag (the easiest ones) are the strike mission bosses that you fight in the story, the others are very much new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

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

  • They were new.
  • They offered unique items.
  • Progress was blocked in obtaining max mastery level regardless of if you used them or not.

We are talking about over 2 years of successful implementation of content. Raids were not that new by then. Max level mastery was not required once fixed. Even then, there was/is a ton of very easy fights which allow players to get 1 kill. That does not reflect an overall interest in raids.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:For example, I was progress blocked for years. I only go my first raid kill last year and I only got the game just before HOT came out.I have over 5,899 hours in the game and I have been playing for 4 and a half years. Which means for 3-4 years I did not have a boss kill which meant I kept going back until I got lucky enough to have some guy get cocky enough to prove you can take anything into a raid and anyone can pass and it isn't intimidating and that I should do them.

Be honest:How much effort did you put in for actually getting into raids or playing the content? This sounds to me more as though you were not interested in the content and join a run by accident. That is perfectly fine, but please don't use this as an argument for difficult access. Unless you spent 4 years trying to get into raids, at which point I would try to understand what the limiting factors were in order to recommend how to approach this.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:That same guy proved he was biased toward me because he made my boyfriend redo his entire dare devil build and make him hit 30k consistently on the training golem before taking him to get his done.

I can't speak as to the "guy" and I certainly did not put such harsh restrictions on new players (though I always recommend players practice, and recommend easy classes), hitting 30k on a Daredevil on the golem is not really difficult or an amaing feat requirement. Half of that is pure auto attack, and the other half is using 2-3 skills every few seconds without even requiring weapon swapping. So while I disagree that such a requirement needs to be put up for training runs, I can't comment on why or how this transpired.

I would recommend though not to judge thousands of players based on a singular event.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:After all this, I haven't really been back into a raid since. I got my masteries and now I don't have a group to do it with because you can't just join anyone. I have made the builds to hit reasonable DPS, etc. but I still fear the community and nothing in there is worth dealing with the community that is there. I don't even like to join fractals full of jargon and BS that excludes people. I just want to get them done, I don't need a kitten speed run.

Again, honest question:How much have you actually tried finding a guild or getting into one? Once again, perfectly fine to not want to join or find other people to play with, but please be critical enough of what the actual reasons are. If 1 bad experience is all it takes for you to never want to raid, I'd question your actual desire to play this content, which directly means you are not the target audience, which is fine.

@hellsqueen.3045 said:Basically:The raiding community is shrinking.And people don't want to join it to keep it alive because the are shamed/feared out of it and the only way to become part of it is through training groups that force you to become as cookie cutter as everyone else.

Find better training groups.

As I mentioned before, I was carried.Not joined some sort of run by accident.But that experience with the player was a turn off because of his bad attitude.

Getting kicked out of groups I had made in my earlier days with my friends. Bad experience.

We later had a much nicer person join who was familiar with raids and he was much different but he openly admitted to being toxic at one point in his raiding time but he was done with that, he was going to play what he liked and not worry about others too much. He took me in on a druid of VG and we made it to some part with a platform or W/E and we probably could have stood to clear the entire wing but unfortunately my internet at the time was pretty terrible and gradually got worse and worse as we progressed through the wing so we had to give up after a while because I was dragging the team down by the second last boss or something.

This was a more positive raid experience for sure and rekindled my interest but I had too many technology based limitations at that point that I couldn't.But also I spoke to him about his time and why it made him so toxic, and he couldn't really explain why but it just did.

I tried when they first came out, obviously it was a disaster. No one knew what was happening, no one knew anything.Came back later, but possibly too late in the bandwagon, at a point where too many people already had their expectations and I didn't know the jargon or anything else.And unlike some people, when I see jargon that reminds me of "LEVEL 80 EXP ONLY EXPLORABLE" I knew better than to join.

This weekend my guild and I had a crack at Cairn because we now have 2 experienced raiders who are lovely people, big ole memers and we love them and they really want to get us to raid because they don't like playing with the raiding community either and don't really enjoy their raid guilds, they are bored because it's all business to them.

We went in with maybe half of us with raid ready builds and the rest of the guild we didn't really worry about too much because we wanted to just put them in the environment and see what happened to better see how we can help them grow. I don't want to just point them to snowcrows and make them follow some rotation. I get that it is effective but I am not going to turn them into little raid robots who end up hating their builds that we forced them to take. We might be using the information as a guide but we are doing our best to make it fit them and advising better ways to build that still reflects them.

Even with these suboptimal conditions, we nearly got the newbies their first boss kills. Obviously 30% is still a long way to go but it was actually a fun experience for them and they weren't scared because even our experienced player who was doing shard kiting was making mistakes but she would jokingly say "omg im throwing" and everyone would laugh and no one was miserable. This week we are helping people work on their builds before we try again next week. As I said, we don't care about the most optimal, we just want to see these players grow enough that we can do them at the bare minimum.

At the end of the day I would rather die a thousand times and learn at my own pace and see my little bits of growth, then be forced to just skip that learning and become the same cookie cutter build just grinding out raids because they are there.

I am still learning in this game every day, and I love that. I am still making mistakes and working on things. This game will be stale when I can't keep learning something new about everything I play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"hellsqueen.3045" said:But dungeon content is old and the moved their focuses else where which stopped people from being interested, regardless of new blood joining.

Indeed. Just like they scrapped dungeons for fractals, they scrapped raids for strike missions. It's the same story all over again, when they want to redirect players towards their new content.

However, each strike uses bosses that inexperienced players have become familiar with throughout the story, so if they beat it in the story they get this confidence that "I did it once, I can do it again with a group of people."

The Icebrood Construct and the Fraenir of Jormag (the easiest ones) are the strike mission bosses that you fight in the story, the others are very much new.

There is also the Boneskinner, which while not story, it is something in the map that people fight, so again is one of those ones that becomes less intimidating to deal with.

I don't think that Raids were scrapped for Strikes however.

Dungeons were already old and for whatever reason when they tried to update the bosses, etc, they just kind of broke and didn't really update. They have stun bars but you can still stun past it and such. It just seems like dungeons were too set in their way that when they tried to update it, it broke things here and there.

It's like a friend of mine pointed out, WoW tried to remove the bag system but it was ingrained in WoW's design that things just didn't work and it couldn't be done.

It seems to me like dungeons suffered the same problem, they were designed so early and rigidly that to properly update the content, they would have needed to remake it. So why spend so much time focusing on it and re-implementing the exact same thing just updated, when they could focus their efforts toward making end game content in a similar design to dungeons that allowed progression for max level players.

The dungeons still have value for leveling but reworking them to fit the games new direction just didn't seem worth the effort.

Raids aren't in that same position as dungeons, they can continue to implement new mechanics, etc. and keep them up to date with the game's direction, so why haven't they?You can't say "it's to push people toward strikes", because if strikes is just supposed to end up being as hard as raids, then at the end of the day it is pretty much is a raid and then all of this content could have been raids.

At this stage Strikes are too easy to be raids. But the most recent one is harder than the ones before it.

I don't think Raids are scrapped and left in the dust like dungeons.I think Strikes are meant to be the equivalent of the easy mode raids people asked for, they are meant to be the 10 man practice progression towards real raids.

I think if Strikes at their maximum difficulty push enough people into raiding, they can justify spending more resources on making more.

There needs to be some way of attracting players who have never done it before. There are so many who don't have the confidence to get there, this is the approach they are taking to attract the new blood they are hoping for.

If people are leaving and there is no new blood coming in, there isn't going to be a point in continuing to release more content. I want more raids to be released, I still haven't completed a wing of anything yet, I still want there to be more of them because raiding is a cool end game thing. But I can't expect Anet to release more if more raid players are leaving than there are joining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hellsqueen.3045 said:There is also the Boneskinner, which while not story, it is something in the map that people fight, so again is one of those ones that becomes less intimidating to deal with.

If by fighting them you mean seeing their graphics then all strike mission bosses appeared in some capacity. But they have vastly different mechanics, the two boneskinners and the two whispers of jormag have very little in common.

At this stage Strikes are too easy to be raids. But the most recent one is harder than the ones before it.

Boneskinner and Whisper of Jormag are harder than the easier Raid bosses. I don't expect future strikes to be harder than the current ones but rather provide a mix of challenge levels.

There needs to be some way of attracting players who have never done it before.

For one thing, Strikes were designed with clear progression in mind with achievements rewarding faster kills. Someone that fails Strike B can always go back to Strike A until they get a better rating, then go back to Strike B. The only thing missing is a CLEAR and VISIBLE in-game difficulty rating for Strike Missions, just like the fractal tiers.

Raid difficulty is a mess, not only the full wings are of varied difficulty, but inside the same wing the difficulty is all over the place. You can't expect a player to finish the hard achievements of Wing 5 first and then go finish the easier ones in W6 and W7. For future reference, they should've started with the easiest wing first, and the bosses inside the wing should have proper difficulty progression. Strikes are doing this, which is a move to a good direction for the game. We'll see how much more support they'll get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can answer why raid is not attractable for meRaid can be attracted if I know what I can close ALL achievements in this part. If I know what I can do all- I don't start it at all.So the way do it - add random raid achievement openner in pvp/wvw track in some raid final chest. So in this way I will go in raid, open what I can, and after that finalize that whit track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...