Jump to content
  • Sign Up

EoD expansion should have new RAID


Recommended Posts

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, you're saying that it's completely normal for casuals to use third-party sites - and more normal than for hardcores to do the same.

Ok, i'm done here. I understand that this is 1st of April, but that's way too much of a joke for me to take in.Yup, the joke already started when TP Barons are associated as hardcores.And where is your statistics to prove these assumptions true and how it relate to the whole of gw2 community (and why)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:Agreed. And Mike Z even said that they are going to put more emphasis on repeatable content because having unique assets and mechanics in a story instance that players play only once (or even not once) is a total waste of resources.

Drms and strikes have been pmuch this tho i wonder if this is smth thats gonna stick around post ibs or if it will get the raids treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@zealex.9410 said:

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Agreed. And Mike Z even said that they are going to put more emphasis on repeatable content because having unique assets and mechanics in a story instance that players play only once (or even not once) is a total waste of resources.

Drms and strikes have been pmuch this tho i wonder if this is smth thats gonna stick around post ibs or if it will get the raids treatment.

This is what I want them to explore more completely. I don't see a reason why a single set of "assets" in an EOD zone/story couldn't include:

  1. Story content
  2. "Scalable group story content with option challenge motes" (aka DRMs but not called that, because the name Dragon Response Missions may not make sense)
  3. 10man strike missions
  4. 10man raids

If the design/asset part is truly a large proportion of what makes raid development difficult, then remove that component. Share the assets and make it one overlapping zone/story with different level of difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ButterPeanut.9746 said:

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Agreed. And Mike Z even said that they are going to put more emphasis on repeatable content because having unique assets and mechanics in a story instance that players play only once (or even not once) is a total waste of resources.

Drms and strikes have been pmuch this tho i wonder if this is smth thats gonna stick around post ibs or if it will get the raids treatment.

This is what I want them to explore more completely. I don't see a reason why a single set of "assets" in an EOD zone/story couldn't include:
  1. Story content
  2. "Scalable group story content with option challenge motes" (aka DRMs but not called that, because the name Dragon Response Missions may not make sense)
  3. 10man strike missions
  4. 10man raids

If the design/asset part is truly a large proportion of what makes raid development difficult, then remove that component. Share the assets and make it one overlapping zone/story with different level of difficulty.

I don't think that's the case though ... the design/asset part didn't prevent previous raid releases to be created, so it's strange to think it's the reason they stopped developing raids. I know people are loathe to admit it .. but raids were just not popular enough to justify their sustained development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Agreed. And Mike Z even said that they are going to put more emphasis on repeatable content because having unique assets and mechanics in a story instance that players play only once (or even not once) is a total waste of resources.

Drms and strikes have been pmuch this tho i wonder if this is smth thats gonna stick around post ibs or if it will get the raids treatment.

This is what I want them to explore more completely. I don't see a reason why a single set of "assets" in an EOD zone/story couldn't include:
  1. Story content
  2. "Scalable group story content with option challenge motes" (aka DRMs but not called that, because the name Dragon Response Missions may not make sense)
  3. 10man strike missions
  4. 10man raids

If the design/asset part is truly a large proportion of what makes raid development difficult, then remove that component. Share the assets and make it one overlapping zone/story with different level of difficulty.

I don't think that's the case though ... the design/asset part didn't prevent previous raid releases to be created, so it's strange to think it's the reason they stopped developing raids. I know people are loathe to admit it .. but raids were just not popular enough to justify their sustained development.

Oh I don't necessarily believe it was the reason they stopped, but rather when they were making raids there were comments by the developers that the asset design was a large piece of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

"we should have a new raid regardless of a new expansion release, especially a raid that give especs like scrappers, spellbreakers, necro specs and all unused professions a job."

 

have you played WvW?

I am not against Raid but I will be avoiding it unless lfg system gets better. I don't like toxic environment when I am just trying to play game.

Edited by Yellow Rainbow.6142
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 3:28 PM, artharon.9276 said:

we should have a new raid regardless of a new expansion release, especially a raid that give especs like scrappers, spellbreakers, necro specs and all unused professions a job.

Well, that seems unlikely, given that raids aren't designed to get specific especs favoured play or to give them 'a job'. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2021 at 8:05 AM, Astralporing.1957 said:

So, you're saying that it's completely normal for casuals to use third-party sites - and more normal than for hardcores to do the same.

Ok, i'm done here. I understand that this is 1st of April, but that's way too much of a joke for me to take in.


Casuals had no issues using Dulfy… which is a third party site. 
 

EDIT:  Wait. Why was this thread necro’d?

Edited by Ayrilana.1396
  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 3:07 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, that seems unlikely, given that raids aren't designed to get specific especs favoured play or to give them 'a job'. 

 

In the lineups, all cores and elites are supposed to have an equal chance to make themselves useful.

That "design" has failed.

 

 

 

Edited by artharon.9276
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, artharon.9276 said:

 

In the lineups, all cores and elites are supposed to have an equal chance to make themselves useful.

That "design" has failed.

 

 

 


because the only way to make them have an equal chance is to make them identical

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, artharon.9276 said:

 

In the lineups, all cores and elites are supposed to have an equal chance to make themselves useful.

That "design" has failed.

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense. They are just different  flavours people can play. Where are these 'lineups' that say they are equally useful? 

Edited by Obtena.7952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 12:43 PM, artharon.9276 said:

 

In the lineups, all cores and elites are supposed to have an equal chance to make themselves useful.

That "design" has failed.

 

 

 

No not at all, spellbreaker for example was specifically designed to be strong in WvW. Their are specs which are superior for different gamemodes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yann.1946 said:

No not at all, spellbreaker for example was specifically designed to be strong in WvW. Their are specs which are superior for different gamemodes.

 

well that's a really really important detail that I didn't know.

share the source and/or an official statement about this cruicial knowledge please. 

 

I searched for interviews, documentations, old forums new forums, I couldn't find Anet saying "we designed spellbreaker for wvw"

 

 

 

On 7/30/2021 at 12:51 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

That doesn't make sense. They are just different  flavours people can play. Where are these 'lineups' that say they are equally useful? 

 

 

Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire – Developer Diary – Elite Specializations - YouTube

4:21

 

they said they looked at 1v1s 5v5s, world bosses, game modes made sure all specializations have a place in every mode.

 

they wanted to make players have overwhelming amout of choices with their classes.

 

just the existance of the bannerslaves is a proof that they have failed.

and you have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

 


 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, artharon.9276 said:

 

well that's a really really important detail that I didn't know.

share the source and/or an official statement about this cruicial knowledge please. 

 

I searched for interviews, documentations, old forums new forums, I couldn't find Anet saying "we designed spellbreaker for wvw"

I do not know whether there is an official statement about this, but the fact that a large part of the class was designed with boonrip and interupts in mind shows that it qtleast was designed for the pvp gamemodes. As these are not major parts of the pve game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, artharon.9276 said:

Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire – Developer Diary – Elite Specializations - YouTube

4:21

 

they said they looked at 1v1s 5v5s, world bosses, game modes made sure all specializations have a place in every mode.

 

they wanted to make players have overwhelming amout of choices with their classes.

 

just the existance of the bannerslaves is a proof that they have failed.

and you have no idea what you are talking about. 

No, that's just proof you are misinterpreting how the game has and was always intended to work. Especs DO have 'a role they fulfill' in every mode because nothing stops you from playing whatever you want in this game and fulfilling the role you made that build for. The game doesn't tell you your role by it's design of an encounter ... YOU do by how you create the builds you play. 

 

Existence of bannerslaves is nothing more than proof that the game has meta; optimal builds that people play to obtain highest performance. That's always existed. That doesn't mean failure at all. That's what any intelligent player would expect in a multi-class game with such open-ended solutions to the PVE content. 

 

So yeah, I do know what I'm talking about ... because the game has worked like that since the start. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, that's just proof you are misinterpreting how the game has and was always intended to work. Especs DO have 'a role they fulfill' in every mode because nothing stops you from playing whatever you want in this game and fulfilling the role you made that build for. The game doesn't tell you your role by it's design of an encounter ... YOU do by how you create the builds you play. 

 

Existence of bannerslaves is nothing more than proof that the game has meta; optimal builds that people play to obtain highest performance. That's always existed. That doesn't mean failure at all. That's what any intelligent player would expect in a multi-class game with such open-ended solutions to the PVE content. 

 

So yeah, I do know what I'm talking about ... because the game has worked like that since the start. 

 

no it's the proof, and exact proof that you are wrong, and you simply can't stay wrong. just blah blah.  

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, artharon.9276 said:

 

no it's the proof, and exact proof that you are wrong, and you simply can't stay wrong. just blah blah.  

I really am curious, take me through the logic why bannerslave is some counterexample of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I really am curious, take me through the logic why bannerslave is some counterexample of some sort.

Yea I mean if you have two warriors in a group or squad they dont both go banner bot so I dont see this as proof they claim it to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, artharon.9276 said:

 

no it's the proof, and exact proof that you are wrong

That doesn't make sense. Bannerslave is proof that people can't determine what role they fill in a team and choose an appropriate build to an espec to do that? You're going to have explain that with more that just blah blah.

 

Actually, Your 'proof' supports what I'm telling you. Bannerslave is just an example of people deciding to make a build to provide offensive support. That's possible for all of especs to be chosen to have purpose in a team ... including the ones you mentioned.

 

How am I wrong? How does your own provided proof not demonstrate the truth in what I'm saying?

Edited by Obtena.7952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That doesn't make sense. Bannerslave is proof that people can't determine what role they fill in a team and choose an appropriate build to an espec to do that? You're going to have explain that with more that just blah blah.

 

Actually, Your 'proof' supports what I'm telling you. Bannerslave is just an example of people deciding to make a build to provide offensive support. That's possible for all of especs to be chosen to have purpose in a team ... including the ones you mentioned.

 

How am I wrong? How does your own provided proof not demonstrate the truth in what I'm saying?

 

thanks for wall of text that has nothing in it.

 

you asked where's the proof  I gave it.

 

it's done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

I really am curious, take me through the logic why bannerslave is some counterexample of some sort.

 

the words within bannerslave, banner and slave is pretty self explanatory.

 

btw, where's the thing I asked

the thing about "spellbreaker is designed for wvw"

Edited by artharon.9276
  • Confused 1
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...