Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Do raids need easy/normal/hard difficulty mode? [merged]


Lonami.2987

Recommended Posts

just give them easy mode raid. I completely understand where some people are coming from.about a year ago when i started to raid, I tried many different ways. Involved in training guild for 2 months. And, I couldnt even kill VG. Every week, new people would join training and we start from square 1. So, it never progressed.people who casually play, its real pita to get into raid if you dont have friends playing this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they preferred the easier version, and if that's the case, then that is where they should be. That is the absolute best case scenario. You are not owed their help in making it easier for you to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952" said:I don't think there should be an easy mode for current raids along side the standard mode ...

but I do think it would be nice if there was some kind of content that gives you access to 'practice', so when you do get a real raid team, you aren't a disaster and wasting people's time.

Exactly this! I was tank in WOW and now that our Chrono is burned out I am willing to pick up the mantle and give it a shot, but......where can I practice? I mean I can hit the golem, sure, and get the muscle memory down as to what to hit but its using Sw2 at the right time, and other skills, that makes a good tank. I need a golem that hits back at least!! Not an "easy mode" raid, gods please no. But as mentioned, a better place for one to hone your skills so that you don't suck as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

A fair point. I would say, in such a situation that some portion of the community would prefer to be doing something else if that option were available to them, and that the LFG is so fragile that this portion would be large enough so as to make that gameplay mode non-viable? Then I think the obvious conclusion is that this gameplay mode wouldn't deserve to exist in the first place, because it clearly doesn't have a community interested in playing it. See "Stronghold."

If raids can only remain viable by holding players hostage to them, then it wouldn't deserve to remain viable.

Just talking hypothetically, just to be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

A fair point. I would say, in such a situation that some portion of the community would prefer to be doing something else if that option were available to them

It might surprise you, but there are things to be doing in this game aside from raids. Plenty of them, actually. And all of them are less challenging. People who prefer to play something easier already can, and do, play something easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

A fair point. I would say, in such a situation that some portion of the community would prefer to be doing something else if that option were available to them

It might surprise you, but there are things to be doing in this game aside from raids. Plenty of them, actually. And all of them are less challenging. People who prefer to play something easier already can, and do, play something easier.

You need to reread the hypothetical situation we were discussing. In it, Yann posited that if 100 players would play Content A (a stand-in for raids in their current form), yet Content B became available (presumably a stand-in for an easy mode), then Content A would suffer a net loss of 30% of its playerbase. Now you can argue that these players "already had something else to do available," but clearly for whatever reason they were not exercising that option until an easier raid became available. As soon as it did, 30% of them declared "hey, we've rather be doing that instead." And that's all well and good, it's how it should be. If people would prefer to be doing something else, that's not a reason to not provide that option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Vinceman.4572 said:Still bringing that up? Holy moly, there was a random guy on the internet insulting you. As far as I remember you mentioned reddit, right?

I got a few tells in game about raids as well from their proponents, So, it's not just one person that is willing to be hostile about this subject.

Well, it has nothing to do with raids. We had several heavy insults in the german forum in some topics that had nothing to do with instanced/difficult/challenging content at all. People also lose their nerves over arguing about bugs, mount skins and the missing char slot for veterans buying HoT for example. All those hate posts are going to be deleted and in most cases people are punished by moderators (reddit does the same...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

A fair point. I would say, in such a situation that some portion of the community would prefer to be doing something else if that option were available to them

It might surprise you, but there are things to be doing in this game aside from raids. Plenty of them, actually. And all of them are less challenging. People who prefer to play something easier already can, and do, play something easier.

You need to reread the hypothetical situation we were discussing. In it, Yann posited that if 100 players would play Content A (a stand-in for raids in their current form), yet Content B became available (presumably a stand-in for an easy mode), then Content A would suffer a net loss of 30% of its playerbase. Now you can argue that these players "already had something else to do available," but clearly for whatever reason they were not exercising that option until an easier raid became available. As soon as it did, 30% of them declared "hey, we've rather be doing that instead." And that's all well and good, it's how it should be. If people would prefer to be doing something else, that's not a reason to
not
provide that option.

You, however, are not making hypothetical requests for a hypothetical game played by hypothetical players. It's a real game and the issues discussed are real. And that is a real reason why your suggestions are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:You need to reread the hypothetical situation we were discussing. In it, Yann posited that if 100 players would play Content A (a stand-in for raids in their current form), yet Content B became available (presumably a stand-in for an easy mode), then Content A would suffer a net loss of 30% of its playerbase. Now you can argue that these players "already had something else to do available," but clearly for whatever reason they were not exercising that option until an easier raid became available. As soon as it did, 30% of them declared "hey, we've rather be doing that instead." And that's all well and good, it's how it should be. If people would prefer to be doing something else, that's not a reason to
not
provide that option.

You, however, are not making hypothetical requests for a hypothetical game played by hypothetical players. It's a real game and the issues discussed are real. And that is a real reason why your suggestions are bad.

But again, even in the real game, it reaches the same results. If the availability of an easy mode would put the viability of the harder mode at risk, then the harder mode doesn't deserve to survive. Its survival should not come at the expense of those X amount of players who would abandon it instead being stuck with a mode that apparently they would abandon at the earliest opportunity.

Yann is basically presenting one possible scenario, but there are really two.

In Yann's, enough people would rather not be doing harder raids that if an easier option presented itself, they would jump ship, and the total current population is already so small that it could not survive such an exodus. In this scenario barely enough people participate in raids as it is, and apparently not enough of them actually enjoy doing it to fully justify the mode in the first place.

The alternate scenario (given the same gameplay changes) is that X amount of players would leave for the new mode, but that the raids were still healthy enough to absorb such a loss, and continue unharmed. I would think that this would be the scenario raiders would want to believe, but in either case, the situation works out for the best, namely that players would be doing the thing they preferred doing, rather being trapped between two bad options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

It wouldn't remove any players that belonged there. If anyone moves from the "real raids" to an easier version, it would only be cause they
preferred
the easier version, and if that's the case, then that
is
where they should be. That
is
the absolute best case scenario.
You
are not
owed
their
help in making it easier for
you
to find a group. They do not work for you. Maybe offer to pay them if you want their labor for your benefit.

Nobody is owed anything indeed but lets just go with the an hypothetical situationContent A has 100 people playing it.

Content B gets introduced and the split bevonden

A 70B 60

And now we need to take into account the treshold for which lfg keeps working.

Say that is 65 then content B will slowly lose players and the and situation is a löss of players.

This is a counterargument against people don't own you anything. Just to make it clear.

A fair point. I would say, in such a situation that some portion of the community would prefer to be doing something else if that option were available to them, and that the LFG is
so
fragile that this portion would be large enough so as to make that gameplay mode non-viable? Then I think the obvious conclusion is that this gameplay mode wouldn't deserve to exist in the first place, because it clearly doesn't have a community interested in playing it. See "Stronghold."

If raids can only remain viable by holding players hostage to them, then it wouldn't deserve to remain viable.

Just talking hypothetically, just to be clear.

Well i have to disagree with the simpel reason dungeons exist for example. You're argument could be used to say dungeons shouldn't have existed to begin with.

I also don't think losing people (in my hypothetical) would be accepteble because trying to rectify what you would call a mistake.

I'm of the opinion we shouldn't neglect how perception marters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 said:Well i have to disagree with the simpel reason dungeons exist for example. You're argument could be used to say dungeons shouldn't have existed to begin with.

And that's possibly true, or at least that they are perhaps not worth continued development. At a time, however, dungeons were reasonably well populated. No gameplay mode lasts forever without change, of course.

I also don't think losing people (in my hypothetical) would be accepteble because trying to rectify what you would call a mistake.

Again, if they would rather do something else then they should be doing that thing. Holding them hostage to a mode they do not enjoy would be the only unacceptable option. If you offer them A and B, and they choose B, then that does not mean you were wrong to offer them B, that means you were wrong to not offer them B sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You need to reread the hypothetical situation we were discussing. In it, Yann posited that if 100 players would play Content A (a stand-in for raids in their current form), yet Content B became available (presumably a stand-in for an easy mode), then Content A would suffer a net loss of 30% of its playerbase. Now you can argue that these players "already had something else to do available," but clearly for whatever reason they were not exercising that option until an easier raid became available. As soon as it did, 30% of them declared "hey, we've rather be doing that instead." And that's all well and good, it's how it should be. If people would prefer to be doing something else, that's not a reason to
not
provide that option.

You, however, are not making hypothetical requests for a hypothetical game played by hypothetical players. It's a real game and the issues discussed are real. And that is a real reason why your suggestions are bad.

But again, even in the real game, it reaches the same results. If the availability of an easy mode would put the viability of the harder mode at risk, then the harder mode doesn't deserve to survive. Its survival should not come at the expense of those X amount of players who would abandon it instead being stuck with a mode that apparently they would abandon at the earliest opportunity.

Yann is basically presenting one possible scenario, but there are really two.

In Yann's, enough people would rather not be doing harder raids that if an easier option presented itself, they would jump ship, and the total current population is already so small that it could not survive such an exodus. In this scenario
barely
enough people participate in raids as it is, and apparently not enough of them actually
enjoy
doing it to fully justify the mode in the first place.

The alternate scenario (given the same gameplay changes) is that X amount of players would leave for the new mode, but that the raids were still healthy enough to absorb such a loss, and continue unharmed. I would think that this would be the scenario raiders would
want
to believe, but in either case, the situation works out for the best, namely that players would be doing the thing they preferred doing, rather being trapped between two bad options.

I actually presented a third option in which the easy mode would absorb people from the hard mode and then eventually die out leading to a net loss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@runeblade.7514 said:

@Ranger Lus.1465 said:from the point of view of a WvW player and university student, it is hard enough for me to find time to run with my guild, it would be nearly impossible for me to find time to raid (at least with the current system) I really want to get into it and have fun with more content other than WvW, I've even considered leaving WvW to start raiding. If there was a way for me to kinda dip my toes in the water before I dropped what I already do to start raiding, I would love it. I think that easier modes should have SIGNIFICANTLY less rewards, so that it is basically a trial to the real content. And it would make it easier for people to learn the mechanics so all the pretentious PvE players have less annoying pugs who don't know what they are doing (I am one of those pugs). I think there needs to be someway for more people to get into raiding, especially in a game that has less PvE content that other MMO's.

You don't learn how to deal with mechanics in an easier mode. You only learn habits that are potentional deathly in normal mode. Seasoned raiders will get even more annoying PUGs who think they know what they are doing but won't work in normal mode.

Most of the PvE content is non-raid content. Between the last two raids were 10 months. If you don't have enough PvE content now, having an easier raid mode won't change that while also delaying the content for people that raid right now.

False. I learned how to play fractals because there was an easier mode. If t4 was the only fractal, I would not be able to join because I would not have enough pristine fractals that the group requires. I couldn't join Arah explorable because of it has one difficulty mode. With different difficulty mode, I can trust most t4 pugs to not fail miserably. I also managed to do 99/100 cm without looking up guides because mechanics do not differ that much from the regular 99/100.

If raids get delayed then that is a good compromise. This will open more people up to raiding. Rather than a few minor snowflakes.

Most mechanics in fractals get ignored because the damage is so high you don't need them anyway. The only fractals were it actually matters is Shattered Observatory and Nightmare.

The only statement we have about raid population is that it is higher than expected from ArenaNet. So the population is not as a small minority you want everyone to believe nor is delaying content to make it appeal to a group that is not the target audience in the first place an acceptable compromise. Raids are already the least updated content. There is plenty for you to play.We could delay living world instead and see how it goes. My guess is that most people actually prefer faster LS releases over raid easy modes.If you actually wanted to learn the mechanics you would have joined a training guild long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

I also don't think losing people (in my hypothetical) would be accepteble because trying to rectify what you would call a mistake.

Again, if they would rather do something else then they
should
be doing that thing. Holding them hostage to a mode they do not enjoy would be the only unacceptable option. If you offer them A and B, and they choose B, then that does not mean you were wrong to offer them B, that means you were wrong to not offer them B
sooner.

But a big part of every videogame is making people do things. You can't satisfy everyone and would you need to satisfy people if it would mean a net loss in players?

The biggest part about this discussion is why should a mode be changed to accommodate the people for which it was not designed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:in either case, the situation works out for the best, namely that players would be doing the thing they preferred doing, rather being trapped between two bad options.

The players are already doing what they prefer doing. Once again, raids aren't the entirety of this game. There is plenty to play aside, and many do so. You're struggling to reason something, using a goal which is already achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop asking for easy mode raids, the raids are already farmed content with no difficulty at all. can't beat a boss in raid? work hard then! do ya just want rewards? go do some open world or something, they give more rewards. stop posting to make raids look like a joke when they're already easy to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

If players would leave the real raids for easy mode raids, they never wanted to do the raids to start with and were just chasing loot.

Truth hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

If players would leave the
real raids
for
easy mode raids
, they never wanted to do the raids to start with and were just chasing loot.

Truth hurts.

Maximizing loot/reward ratio is a standard behavior and it doesn't prove what you think it does.The only truth here is that easier content already exists. In fact, it accounts for the vast majority of the pve content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good to see this topic resurface periodically on its own, as many of us predicted it would.

I still contend that the way raids are currently implemented does not fit with the rest of the game, potentially fragments the story experience, encourages toxicity among players and is unsustainable long term. Outside of a tiered difficulty system, I believe the only way they can maintain consistent long-term interest will be to use a lopsided reward system that creates a severe have/have not situation between raiders and non raiders - something many players would find disheartening. That is a dangerous road to go down and would fly in the face of the reasons many picked this game over other MMOs.

I still hold out hope that Anet management steps in and realizes this sooner rather than later - but I do think that easy modes/tiered difficulties will have to happen. It is just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blaeys.3102 said:I still hold out hope that Anet management steps in and realizes this sooner rather than later - but I do think that easy modes/tiered difficulties will have to happen. It is just a matter of time.

LOL, I think the Raid team would get canned first, Management does not design the raids, that is the Dev's jobs, so they will either do a job of it, or not. If the job they are doing is not good enough management won't come in and tell them how to make a raid, they will fire them, and either hire a new team, or just stop raid development. In a Game like GW2, since raids are not linked to any other content, just stopping them (like they did with Dungeons) will have almost no impact other then some crying on the forums.

Truth is, at this point, I would bet most of the gold that goes into buying raids comes from people that farmed it as opposed to Gem-trade, so, what happens is, People Farm gold to buy a raid, then the seller used that gold to buy gems, and.... Anet makes less money overall.

And truth is, if someone just spent.. say 2,500 gold to buy the raids to get Evony armor, they are not going to buy outfits, or anything else from the store, given how much they paid for their armor, so most cosmetic items will not be generating real money income. Which is why we saw such a move by Anet to find ways to generate real money income from mounts.

But that is just me pontificating on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.If there are players that would rather do the easy mode and not play normal raids at all, then you aren't owed their help in the normal mode. If raids were starved of players jusb because easy mode existed, then perhaps the current mode should never have been made (as it would mean there simply weren't enough people interested in it in the first place).

@yann.1946 said:Well i have to disagree with the simpel reason dungeons exist for example. You're argument could be used to say dungeons shouldn't have existed to begin with.Raids don't have poor rewards, and they aren't officially abandoned by the devs, so it's not really comparable. If dungeons didn't have their rewards nerfed and people weren't told to go elsewhere, they'd still be alive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The higher requirements the community imposes are a natural result of the higher difficulty to carry the specific content. The same players, when playing easier content, just don't care. You can see this in high-end fractal parties who proceed to play recommended fractals after clearing t4 and cms. Someone leaves because they're not interested in recs, we LFG and don't care what we get. We'll faceroll the content anyway. We could easily 4-man, or 3-man it, but why not help someone along? At the same time, we really care what we get prior to that. Because 100 CM isn't that easy to carry. That's all. Same applies for raids.

Exactly. This is why an easy mode would really work better for a lot of players that don't want to deal with any of that.

At the expense of starving the real raids of the players they need. No thanks.

If players would leave the
real raids
for
easy mode raids
, they never wanted to do the raids to start with and were just chasing loot.

Truth hurts.

Maximizing loot/reward ratio is a standard behavior and it doesn't prove what you think it does.The only truth here is that
easier content already exists
. In fact, it accounts for the vast majority of the pve content.

Spoken like someone that needs to keep their clientele, Nothing but respect, if I was selling Raid clears for 100-200 gold a boss, I'd say and do anything to protect that as well.

I've had enough of you spreading false information about me. From now on, every time you call me a raid seller, this one included, I'll report you for name calling. Not that "raid seller" is an insult, but I won't stand you spreading lies and trying to undermine valid arguments by implying false personal motivation.

Well, if not for selling a raid and protecting your own profits, why else would you care if there was an easy mode put in?

Truth is, I'd respect a raid seller trying to keep their coin income more then I would the other motives which are really just pitiful e-kitten waving and wanting to feel better then the unwashed masses. So.. yah.

I've given plenty of argumentation, it's not my fault you refuse to hear any of it.

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"Blaeys.3102" said:I still hold out hope that Anet management steps in and realizes this sooner rather than later - but I do think that easy modes/tiered difficulties will have to happen. It is just a matter of time.

LOL, I think the Raid team would get canned first, Management does not design the raids, that is the Dev's jobs, so they will either do a job of it, or not. If the job they are doing is not
good enough
management won't come in and tell them how to make a raid, they will fire them, and either hire a new team, or just stop raid development. In a Game like GW2, since raids are not linked to any other content, just stopping them (like they did with Dungeons) will have almost no impact other then some crying on the forums.

Truth is, at this point, I would bet most of the gold that goes into buying raids comes from people that farmed it as opposed to Gem-trade, so, what happens is, People Farm gold to buy a raid, then the seller used that gold to buy gems, and.... Anet makes less money overall.

And truth is, if someone just spent.. say 2,500 gold to buy the raids to get Evony armor, they are not going to buy outfits, or anything else from the store, given how much they paid for their armor, so most cosmetic items will not be generating real money income. Which is why we saw such a move by Anet to find ways to generate real money income from mounts.

But that is just me pontificating on this issue.

Lot of jumping to conclusions here. Personally, I've invested significantly more effort getting the Envoy than I spend getting 2500 gold. And yet I purchased and used several outfits after that. So once again your "truth" is nothing but baseless speculation, demonstrably false.

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...