Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Lonami.2987

Recommended Posts

not saying people can get in raid or not if they do fractal or not. i am saying people who hasn't even done any fractal, should not ask for raid to be in easy more so they can try. what about try fractal first? they haven't done t4, you think they are ready for raid? those that never done raid has no idea the amount of time raiders spent at the beginning stage wiping. i am not opposing to have raid made easier mode, i am saying if you cant get in raid, why don't you try fractal first? many of these people can not even do fractal believe it or not. i have 1 very casual guildie PMed me, asking for help with build and etc. he also commented that SC video is a lie because there is no way people can do 40k dps. He consistently pm me that he wanted to get into raid but he couldnt even manage maitrin when we were trying to help him with a leg weapon collection. there is always an excuse why he couldn't do that .. why he always go down.. why he couldn't dodge.. why and so on. if someone cant even manage t4 do you think he is ready for raid?and it isn't because we didn't want to help him, but we just not sure how to help him ...

like i said earlier. if Dev make easy mode raid, players not going to end there, they are going to ask for more, similar to pvp and wvw leg armor, now they are saying we want skin not just stat changing. i mean.. if we change the current raid so more people has a chance to play it.. by all means do it. but.. that shouldn't change what dev originally has in mind what they like Raids in this game to be. otherwise, it doesn't serve the purpose of the original game structure and design intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Talindra.4958" said:not saying people can get in raid or not if they do fractal or not. i am saying people who hasn't even done any fractal, should not ask for raid to be in easy more so they can try. what about try fractal first?

That's like saying that if someone has an issue with sPvP, "why not do WvW first?"

Answer: "because they aren't interested in that, and don't need to be."

They are separate activities.

those that never done raid has no idea the amount of time raiders spent at the beginning stage wiping.

I know full well how much time it takes, which is why I never want anything to do with that, and want them to make an easier mode to play instead of that.

like i said earlier. if Dev make easy mode raid, players not going to end there, they are going to ask for more, similar to pvp and wvw leg armor, now they are saying we want skin not just stat changing.

I want the skins and not the stat changing. The skins are the only important part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing is. fractal require skills. raid require more skills. if the person cant manage fractal, raid is not for him. dev is wasting time to make raid easy mode for him. because essentially he will not even able to do raid in easy mode. what is the point of wasting dev time for that? if he cant do fractal. do you think he can do raid?the reason fractal and raid has been brought up because before the post is merged, the OP said he hasn't tried t4, so i suggested him to do t4 first and also especially cm... while trying to get into Raid at the mean time. we have gone way side track since with discussion.

and with pvp and wvw..... i also like to stress out that. someone who cant do pvp (i mean like really 1v1 2v1 3v1), he/she can still do wvw and get the leg armor.. just have to spend time in it without even needing to be in a wvw orientated guild. in pve raid, you cant do that. Do not expect pve raid to be like that, you need to spend a little bit of time to learn boss mechanic and profession role and duties. w/o doing that, you get kicked from pug group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Talindra.4958" said:the thing is. fractal require skills. raid require more skills. if the person cant manage fractal, raid is not for him.

I think you're completely missing the point. People know that "raids are not for them."

That is the entire reason that an easy mode is being discussed, because players fully recognize that "raids are not for them," but they would like a version of the raid that is for them, one that involves all the features of raiding except for the barriers of entry that make "raids not be for them."

Until you can understand that this is what we're discussing then you can't meaningfully contribute to the discussion at all, all you could do is talk past everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:I'm totally in for good casual endgame content but I'm definitely not convinced that easy mode raids will be the solution here. New dungeons would be by far the better option filled with lore and other things because that is what casual players like - a deeper identification with the game and its story. The actual raid wings don't serve this purpose at all imho. The bosses were designed to be beaten, the lore is secondary and is only present to not have an empty room/platform and a boss because the overwhelming majority of raiders is interested in the fights and not the things connected to anything else.

Definitely agree with this.Weve already seen with PoF what players think when its not entirely high enough quality. No need to make an easy mode on raids that is mostly piggybacking in that content without having enough substance of its own.

I rather see easy raids/dungeons or even open world or even story mode replayability improvements. I really dont like copy pasta content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:I raided for decades.. I came here to get away from that kind of content. If I wanted to keep raiding, I would still be playing my previous MMO.. or.. an MMO designed from the ground up to be about raids.Excellent, so why don't you just go on with your original plan? There's exactly nothing in GW2 that would even remotely force people to play raids. But stop trying to ruin content that's perfectly fine for its intended target audience.

This is where you are a wrong.. They Locked Legendary Armor behind Raids

This is where you are wrong, legendary armor is obtainable through PvP and WvW as well. Stop spreading misinformation.

@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.

Well, you may have said a lot of words on the subject matter, but truth be told, unless someone was selling raids, all the other reasons are vastly shallow and self serving, showing a massive lack of character, that someone needs to deny other people fun to enjoy a game. I respect the raid sellers far more then those people.

How convenient to portray everything that doesn't fit your own agenda as either greed of "massive lack of character". You're right about one thing though - I had said a lot of words on the subject matter. So I won't bother repeating them. Your attempts at discrediting me do not make my arguments any less valid.

Well here is a challenge for you. Give me a reason why you want raids to be as they are, that is not purely self serving, and centered around needing to find self validation in game by acquiring some bauble for you to parade about that the filthy masses should not be allowed to have as well. I say this because you are also adamantly against there being any other PvE path to obtain Legendary Armor.

I'll wait.

Ultimately all reasons here are self-serving. I want the raids to remain as they are because changing them the way you want would wreck them and I'll be unable to keep enjoying them. Because it is about my fun, my reasoning is, of course, partially selfish. But there's a difference. You want the raids to change in order to get a reward and you don't care if you're killing excellent content and the fun of players who like it, as long as you can get said reward. It's a huge, huge difference. One that makes your attempts at taking the moral high ground impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"FrizzFreston.5290" said:I rather see easy raids/dungeons or even open world or even story mode replayability improvements. I really dont like copy pasta content.

It is practically impossible that they could create comparable original content to an easy mode raid, even if they spent 2-4 times as much time and effort producing it. Realistically it would likely take ten times as many manhours or more.

For all those complaining "an easy mode raid would just take too much time and effort, it's an unnecessary distraction to the devs!!!!!!," well, whether that is true or not, the time and effort needed to create something completely unique instead absolutely must be several times that.

It would require every ounce of time and effort that would go into making an easy mode of an existing raid encounter, PLUS the time to model unique enemies, PLUS the time to develop unique mechanics for them, PLUS the time to construct new environments, PLUS presumably a new set of rewards since the raiders haven't learned to share, PLUS the story and dialog that would merge all that together. the more of those things the easy raid content can share with the existing raids, the less time and effort the devs need to put into making it happen. That's not to say that easy mode raids would be effortless, it would take time, I'm just pointing out that easy mode raids would take less time than any alternative other than "nothing at all."

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

That doesn't seem realistic, unless they really flub the implementation of the easy mode in some way.

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?

"Making" people do things is a REALLY bad design philosophy. What you want to do is
reward
players for doing things they
enjoy
doing. If you reward them for grind, then it will be less and less effective over time. You need to figure out want that
want
to do, and then reward them for doing it.

It really isn't. Let me quote a book for you:

“Yes, I could have traveled quickly. But all men have the same ultimate destination. Whether we find our end in a hallowed sepulcher or a pauper’s ditch, all save the Heralds themselves must dine with the Nightwatcher. “ ‘And so, does the destination matter? Or is it the path we take? I declare that no accomplishment has substance nearly as great as the road used to achieve it. We are not creatures of destinations. It is the journey that shapes us. Our callused feet, our backs strong from carrying the weight of our travels, our eyes open with the fresh delight of experiences lived. “ ‘In the end, I must proclaim that no good can be achieved of false means. For the substance of our existence is not in the achievement, but in the method."

You're focusing on the destination, on the reward. It's meaningless. It's the journey that matters. That's why the design approach in question is so good - because it designs the journey, the experience. Instead of relying on chance, or on the player's own imagination, will or immersion to create a memorable experience. Sure, there will be those who do it. But also, there will be those who won't. By designing the experience, you make sure everyone gets it. Of course, you can't ensure the same meaning for everyone, but it is still a much, much better result.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@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.

Again, in the example, 100 people were raiding before, and after easy mode was added, 130 people were raiding, and of those, thirty had shifted from the hard to easy mode, so clearly they were unsatisfied with the existing version. I'm not saying that there's
no
way for players to spend their time without an easy mode being offered, but I am pointing out that there are a lot of players who would
appreciate
having the alternative of an easy mode, because "not raiding at all" is not their preferred outcome, and "playing the currently difficult raids" is
also
not their preferred outcome.

No, "raiding" on easy mode won't be raiding. You'll have less people doing actual raids, taking away from their fun in order to provide some other people with experience that is virtually the same as ones already existing in the game. It's a pure loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Feanor.2358" said:Ultimately all reasons here are self-serving. I want the raids to remain as they are because changing them the way you want would wreck them and I'll be unable to keep enjoying them. Because it is about my fun, my reasoning is, of course, partially selfish. But there's a difference. You want the raids to change in order to get a reward and you don't care if you're killing excellent content and the fun of players who like it, as long as you can get said reward. It's a huge, huge difference. One that makes your attempts at taking the moral high ground impossible.

Why?

Let's say that you're right (which you aren't) and that it is entirely about the reward (it isn't), why would that even hypothetically make his position in any way less virtuous than your own? As you say, you have a selfish interest in keeping things the same, because the current system benefits you and how you enjoy playing it. Fair enough. And the Straw-STIHL in your example would want things to change, because he doesn't like how things are, and would enjoy it more after. These are equally virtuous (or in-virtuous) positions.

Now, if you want to actually find a high-ground, there are two factors to base that one. First is, how many would fall into each camp? If more people would be happy about it changing than would be sad about it changing, then they would get the high-ground, and vice-versa. The second would be a matter of whether or not the two sides are mutually exclusive, or if one side is being unreasonable.

It's my assertion that they could add an easy mode without altering the hard mode in ANY way. In which case, you would no longer have any basis to complain that the mode you enjoyed would be going away. Now, would other players suddenly be able to play with those toys? Might they choose to do so rather than to help you play with yours? Perhaps, but you are not entitled to either of those things, and putting your own interest in monopolizing those resources ahead of their interest in sharing them would obviously be the far more self-absorbed position to take, and lose any hint of a high-ground in the argument.

You're focusing on the destination, on the reward. It's meaningless. It's the journey that matters.

Journey before destination, but the destination is still of interest. And don't forget that you are no less focused on the destination than I am, you are the one insisting that nobody can reach Urithiru except on foot.

More importantly, your journey is not necessarily my journey. I'm not concerned with the destination in this case, so much as in having a journey that I would enjoy. I can say with certainty that I would not enjoy following your path, so why are you so objectionable to the idea of me having a path available that I would enjoy? Again, you can create the "memorable experience" you want people to have, and offer it to them, encourage them to pursue it, but it's also good to accept that it may not be for everyone, and offer alternatives for those that won't enjoy that particular flavor of experience.

No, "raiding" on easy mode won't be raiding.

This is a tautological argument that is pointless to pursue. It's basically the definition of "No True Scotsman." If you believe that "raiding on easy mode won't be raiding," then fine, I couldn't convince you otherwise. But it would by necessity be something, and whatever that "something" is, whatever you want to call that something, that is the something that I would want to play. If that's not what you could call raiding, that's fine. I couldn't care less about the name.

You'll have less people doing actual raids, taking away from their fun in order to provide some other people with experience that is virtually the same as ones already existing in the game. It's a pure loss.

Apparently not for those "less people doing actual raids" though, or else they would still be doing "actual raids." It's a net gain for them, and for all the people who currently don't raid at all that would enjoy this new thing (whatever you call it). Any people missing from the "actual raids" after this are people that you weren't entitled to in the first place, and their loss is a net gain, because it makes THEM happier. If them having more fun with how they choose to play results in them having more fun than if they played how you want them to play, then that's just too bad for you. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Ohoni.6057" said:It's my assertion that they could add an easy mode without altering the hard mode in ANY way. In which case, you would no longer have any basis to complain that the mode you enjoyed would be going away. Now, would other players suddenly be able to play with those toys? Might they choose to do so rather than to help you play with yours? Perhaps, but you are not entitled to either of those things, and putting your own interest in monopolizing those resources ahead of their interest in sharing them would obviously be the far more self-absorbed position to take, and lose any hint of a high-ground in the argument.

You're focusing on the destination, on the reward. It's meaningless. It's the journey that matters.

Journey
before
destination, but the destination is still of interest. And don't forget that you are no
less
focused on the destination than I am,
you
are the one insisting that nobody can reach Urithiru except on foot.

More importantly,
your
journey is not necessarily
my
journey. I'm not concerned with the destination in this case, so much as in having a journey that I would
enjoy
. I can say with certainty that I would not enjoy following your path, so why are you so objectionable to the idea of me having a path available that I
would
enjoy? Again, you can create the "memorable experience" you want people to have, and offer it to them, encourage them to pursue it, but it's also good to accept that it may not be for everyone, and offer alternatives for those that won't enjoy that particular flavor of experience.

Let's focus on this, because it's the crux of the issue. By the way, kudos for catching the reference.

The metaphor works for solitary experience. You'd be right if this only concerned the personal experience. However, it doesn't. Consider a Nohadon who would need to persuade 9 others to join him. A Nohadon who is no king and has no authority over them. There's the easy way, the direct way. Who would join him and why? This is where the metaphor breaks for your case. And this is why I'm objecting to your suggestion - because it would flip the tables completely. It would give you an experience, but it will take mine away. And what I keep saying all the time, it will only give you an experience which you can already get in the game. But the one it will take away from me has no alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Feanor.2358" said:The metaphor works for solitary experience. You'd be right if this only concerned the personal experience. However, it doesn't. Consider a Nohadon who would need to persuade 9 others to join him. A Nohadon who is no king and has no authority over them. There's the easy way, the direct way. Who would join him and why? This is where the metaphor breaks for your case. And this is why I'm objecting to your suggestion - because it would flip the tables completely. It would give you an experience, but it will take mine away. And what I keep saying all the time, it will only give you an experience which you can already get in the game. But the one it will take away from me has no alternative.

Nohadon was wise enough to know that if nine other people didn't want to go on a roadtrip with him, for not other benefit than that he would enjoy it, then he had no right to insist that they do so.

If you need to find nine other people to run a raid with you, and there aren't nine other people who want to run a raid with you, then I'm afraid you don't get to run that raid, but that is not a bad outcome, because those nine other people are happier doing whatever it is they're doing, and that outweighs any inconvenience to yourself. Take comfort in their happiness. Or maybe offer to pay them to run the raid with you, if you made it worth their while they might.

Personally, my stance is, if a well balanced easy mode would cripple the existing raid as thoroughly as you insist, then the existing raid is already on such shakey ground as to not be worth existing. May as well pull the plug.

If, on the other hand, raids in their current form are "healthy" and "worthwhile," then the existence of easy mode raiding should not deplete them to the point of unsustainability. It might take a little longer to fill a pug, but you should still be able to find your groups and run the content.

And what I keep saying all the time, it will only give you an experience which you can already get in the game.

And I keep asking, where, in the current game, can I find, say, Gorseval, only in a version that has all the same mechanics, but with reduced penalties for failing them? You seem to be making the case, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that there are other completely different experiences in the game, but which are of a difficulty level that is more in my wheelhouse. I've never disputed that this is the case, however, that is never what I've been asking for here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Eramonster.2718" said:Tldr. But for those who had problem getting into raids had already solved it. The ongoing are just the same players from what I noticed.

Indeed. Like in every thread concerning raids. The same mantra being reapeted by the same people.

It's obnoxious to see someone spamming the same arguments over and over. It's disrupting the discussion. Posts of people who actually have something new and fresh to say drown in this sea of copy pasta.

People don't recognize the problem with raids which is:

  • early game does not teach players about the importance of crowd control skills and "the art of damage mitigation",
  • training runs organized by guilds are very occupied; people don't start training runs on their own,
  • guilds which organize training runs are not well advertised (recruitment),
  • some people are not interested in learning raids instead they want ANet to give them a fish (legendary armor) instead of a rod,
  • high entry requirement to get into experienced groups - amount of KP/LI,
  • boss mechanics are not introduced before the fight anymore; it was implemented very well in Forsaken Thicket, but in Hall of Chains only Statue of Death does it,
  • (this is subjective) devs should have followed the design of Bastion of the Penitent which is probably the most popular raid wing on LFG - bosses have easy to read animations & there is not much visual noise, failing a mechanic on Cairn/MO/Samarog may result in your death, but not in a complete wipe of your team,
  • there are no raid dailies incentivising players to reapeat challenge motes & kill bosses more than once a week, which means there is a lot of players on raid LFG right after the reset and during weekends, but in the middle of a week this number drops,

Completing easy mode gives you nothing. People still won't take you into their group because you have no actual experience with the real boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Assic.2746 said:Completing easy mode gives you nothing. People still won't take you into their group because you have no actual experience with the
real
boss.

Easy mode, done right, is its
own
reward. It's not
about
getting sempai to notice us. We'd already have the mode we wanted to play in.

You actually trust anet to do it right?What exactly is your definition of an easy mode done right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The metaphor works for solitary experience. You'd be right if this only concerned the personal experience. However, it doesn't. Consider a Nohadon who would need to persuade 9 others to join him. A Nohadon who is no king and has no authority over them. There's the easy way, the direct way. Who would join him and why? This is where the metaphor breaks for your case. And this is why I'm objecting to your suggestion - because it would flip the tables completely. It would give
you
an experience, but it will take mine away. And what I keep saying all the time, it will only give you an experience
which you can already get in the game
. But the one it will take away from me has no alternative.

Nohadon was wise enough to know that if nine other people didn't want to go on a roadtrip with him, for not other benefit than that he would enjoy it, then he had no right to insist that they do so.

Not the point.

@Ohoni.6057 said:If you need to find nine other people to run a raid with you, and there aren't nine other people who want to run a raid with you, then I'm afraid you don't get to run that raid, but that is not a bad outcome, because those nine other people are happier doing whatever it is they're doing, and that outweighs any inconvenience to yourself. Take comfort in their happiness. Or maybe offer to pay them to run the raid with you, if you made it worth their while they might.

Here, another quote: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". Decision-making isn't black-or-white. And "happy" is a state that's very hard to quantify.

@Ohoni.6057 said:Personally, my stance is, if a well balanced easy mode would cripple the existing raid as thoroughly as you insist, then the existing raid is already on such shakey ground as to not be worth existing. May as well pull the plug.

And you are wrong. The downfall of raiding wouldn't happen because people are reluctant to play them. To the contrary, the vast majority of raiders are happy to raid. The downfall would happen because you'd change the Nash equilibrium on a meta-level. The balance you speak of is impossible. One of the ways will always have a better reward/effort ratio, and it will become the preferred way. You won't get an even split. The more people pour into the "better" mode, the harder it gets for the remaining to play the other and higher the incentive will be to join the bandwagon. It's not a matter of personal preference any more, the process snowballs itself.

If the normal mode ends up "better", nothing changes. Few people get to play easy-mode raids, but it's not worth the development time, especially since there won't be enough players to keep the mode alive. If the easy mode does, then raids die. There is no possible positive outcome to this.

@Ohoni.6057 said:And I keep asking, where, in the current game, can I find, say, Gorseval, only in a version that has all the same mechanics, but with reduced penalties for failing them? You seem to be making the case, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that there are other completely different experiences in the game, but which are of a difficulty level that is more in my wheelhouse. I've never disputed that this is the case, however, that is never what I've been asking for here.

A Gorseval with reduced penalties will not be Gorseval. It doesn't matter the mechanics are "the same" (which they won't be by the way). The threat isn't. The challenge isn't. The experience you'd get will not be that different from, say, fighting Bloomhunger. Because, again, it's the journey that matters. Defeating a raid boss is a completely different experience for the sole reason that it is much more challenging. It's not the mechanics - there are plenty of bosses featuring a lot of mechanics, both in fractals and even in open world. It's not the LI. It's not the theme and it's not the visuals. It's the challenge.

Now, I totally agree that "challenge" is somewhat subjective. And that's my point: if you find Gorseval too hard, then you can choose another boss and get the same subjective level of challenge as an average raider fighting Gorseval. And since the experience we speak of is overcoming said challenge, you'll get effectively the same experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definetly raids need more difficulty options!!! Not only CM - you can feed newbie pve player / casual / and elitist. This can be good way how to learn mechanics and get some experience. Next step should be some better kill proof show (achievemnts etc) then LI spam...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@David.5974 said:Definetly raids need more difficulty options!!! Not only CM - you can feed newbie pve player / casual / and elitist. This can be good way how to learn mechanics and get some experience. Next step should be some better kill proof show (achievemnts etc) then LI spam...

Unfortunately, no. The only way to learn mechanics is to play them. Tuned down versions won't suffice.

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.

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

That doesn't seem realistic, unless they really flub the implementation of the easy mode in some way.

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?

"Making" people do things is a REALLY bad design philosophy. What you want to do is
reward
players for doing things they
enjoy
doing. If you reward them for grind, then it will be less and less effective over time. You need to figure out want that
want
to do, and then reward them for doing it.

It really isn't. Let me quote a book for you:

“Yes, I could have traveled quickly. But all men have the same ultimate destination. Whether we find our end in a hallowed sepulcher or a pauper’s ditch, all save the Heralds themselves must dine with the Nightwatcher. “ ‘And so, does the destination matter? Or is it the path we take? I declare that no accomplishment has substance nearly as great as the road used to achieve it. We are not creatures of destinations. It is the journey that shapes us. Our callused feet, our backs strong from carrying the weight of our travels, our eyes open with the fresh delight of experiences lived. “ ‘In the end, I must proclaim that no good can be achieved of false means. For the substance of our existence is not in the achievement, but in the method."

You're focusing on the destination, on the reward. It's meaningless. It's the journey that matters. That's why the design approach in question is so
good
- because it designs the journey, the experience. Instead of relying on chance, or on the player's own imagination, will or immersion to create a memorable experience. Sure, there will be those who do it. But also, there will be those who won't. By
designing
the experience, you make sure everyone gets it. Of course, you can't ensure the same meaning for everyone, but it is still a much, much better result.

@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.

Again, in the example, 100 people were raiding before, and after easy mode was added, 130 people were raiding, and of those, thirty had shifted from the hard to easy mode, so clearly they were unsatisfied with the existing version. I'm not saying that there's
no
way for players to spend their time without an easy mode being offered, but I am pointing out that there are a lot of players who would
appreciate
having the alternative of an easy mode, because "not raiding at all" is not their preferred outcome, and "playing the currently difficult raids" is
also
not their preferred outcome.

No, "raiding" on easy mode won't be raiding. You'll have less people doing actual raids, taking away from their fun in order to provide some other people with experience that is virtually the same as ones already existing in the game. It's a pure loss.

Eh? Doesn’t make much sense if people doing the easy mode are people who don’t raid now. For the purist, they would do normal mode or hard mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sephylon.4938 said:

@"Assic.2746" said:Completing easy mode gives you nothing. People still won't take you into their group because you have no actual experience with the
real
boss.

Easy mode, done right, is its
own
reward. It's not
about
getting sempai to notice us. We'd already have the mode we wanted to play in.

You actually trust anet to do it right?What exactly is your definition of an easy mode done right?

It's not a failure to not get something right on the first try, it's only a failure if you don't continue trying to improve it. I think they might make mistakes, but I do have faith they could get it right in short enough order.

As for what I would view as a well executed easy mode? Leave every mechanic in place, every movement of the AI, but blunt the edges, reduce OHKOs to merely high damage attacks, add safety catches to no-win scenarios, like when you run out of updrafts on Gorseval, the cycle would just repeat from the starting point. The gameplay goal would be that if the players chose to treat the encounter as if it were hard mode, and they each played their part well, then the results would be largely identical to those of a hard mode team's, but if they made mistakes, they could just keep moving forward, where the hard mode team would have wiped. Think of it like a hurdle race. A real life hurdler would need to jump every hurdle flawlessly to avoid tripping. An "easier" version would have illusionary hurdles, that you could smack into without falling. If a runner was on the second course, but treated it like the first, then it would look exactly the same as on the first, but if he messed up and hit a hurdle, he could keep going.

As for rewards, it would offer a lower quantity of rewards to the hard mode, and the path to the unique rewards would be a longer one, but it would still offer rewards worthwhile to the time and effort the easy mode would take (relative to other types of content in the game), and would allow for progression toward raid rewards, just at a considerably slower pace (again, relative to the difference in time and effort).

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:The metaphor works for solitary experience. You'd be right if this only concerned the personal experience. However, it doesn't. Consider a Nohadon who would need to persuade 9 others to join him. A Nohadon who is no king and has no authority over them. There's the easy way, the direct way. Who would join him and why? This is where the metaphor breaks for your case. And this is why I'm objecting to your suggestion - because it would flip the tables completely. It would give
you
an experience, but it will take mine away. And what I keep saying all the time, it will only give you an experience
which you can already get in the game
. But the one it will take away from me has no alternative.

Nohadon was wise enough to know that if nine other people didn't want to go on a roadtrip with him, for not other benefit than that he would enjoy it, then he had no right to insist that they do so.

Not the point.

You were making the point that if he had to rope a bunch of other people into the trip just so that he could make it, then he should do so. I'm pointing out that he was a better man than that. He allowed people to make their own choices, even if their choices weren't his choices. "My family traveled to Urithiru via the direct method, and had been awaiting me for weeks when I arrived. . . Couldn’t I have just taken the simple, easy, and common route to the holy city? For my answer, I removed my sandals and proffered my callused feet. They were comfortable upon the table beside my half-consumed tray of grapes. At this point, the expressions of my companions proclaimed that they thought me daft, and so I explained by relating the stories of my trip. . . "

He took the path that was right for himself, but he allowed that their own path might be a different one.

Here, another quote: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". Decision-making isn't black-or-white. And "happy" is a state that's very hard to quantify.

True, but irrelevant. They made their choice, it's the one that works for them. If it's not the one that works for you, then that's too bad. Again, it's up to you to convince them to want to do things your way, rather than their own. You might want to try gold.

And you are wrong. The downfall of raiding wouldn't happen because people are reluctant to play them. To the contrary, the vast majority of raiders are happy to raid. The downfall would happen because you'd change the Nash equilibrium on a meta-level. The balance you speak of is impossible. One of the ways will always have a better reward/effort ratio, and it will become the preferred way.

I am perfectly willing for hard mode to be "the better way." Let's say that "perfectly balanced" is 50/50, I would have NO problem with it being 60/40 in favor of the hard mode, or even 70/30. Even 30% is better than 0%. I don't want a mode that lures happy raiders away from hard mode, I want one that ONLY appeals to people who don't want to be there in the first place. If, as you say, players will stick to the version with the "better ratio," then I want that to be hard mode, and it should remain well stocked with fish.

If the normal mode ends up "better", nothing changes. Few people get to play easy-mode raids, but it's not worth the development time, especially since there won't be enough players to keep the mode alive. If the easy mode does, then raids die. There is no possible positive outcome to this.

I argue that this is not true, because of two groups.

  1. Those who do not raid, and never will, under the current system, but who would raid if a mode existed without the barriers that keep them from raiding today. I believe that there are enough of these to sustain the easy mode as a worthwhile project of the size and scope it would require.
  2. Those who do currently raid, but only because it's the only option of a raid experience with raid loot, and they'd really rather be doing something else with their time. Easy mode would give them that option, but by definition these people would not be happy right now, they would be grudgingly going along with it, and this would make them happier, so whatever the result, that is a good thing.

A Gorseval with reduced penalties will not be Gorseval.

Again with the pointless tautology. I do not care what you choose to call it, let's call him "Frank." I do not want to fight the "Gorseval that would be Gorseval to you," I want to fight Frank, who is a monster who is identical to Goreseval, except that the updrafts refresh themselves, he deals reduced damage in most cases, it's easier to recover downed or even defeated players, basically many of the things that cause players to wipe against Gorseval, wouldn't lead to a wipe against Frank. Also, Frank would be called "Gorseval," because "Frank" would be a silly name for a multifarious beast.

The challenge isn't. The experience you'd get will not be that different from, say, fighting Bloomhunger. Because, again, it's the journey that matters. Defeating a raid boss is a completely different experience for the sole reason that it is much more challenging. It's not the mechanics - there are plenty of bosses featuring a lot of mechanics, both in fractals and even in open world. It's not the LI. It's not the theme and it's not the visuals. It's the challenge.

Agreed, but I have no interest in taking that journey. That journey would not bring me the joy that it seems to bring you. I want to take a similar journey, one which borrows many surface elements, but which lacks a lot of those jagged rocks you lionize. That's the journey I want, the journey that I would benefit from, even if it's a different journey than your own.

if you find Gorseval too hard, then you can choose another boss and get the same subjective level of challenge as an average raider fighting Gorseval.

But my point is that you seem to be willfully ignoring what I actually want, because I am not looking for "anything of the same subjective level of challenge ," that is not what I am looking for here. What I am looking for is an encounter with the same details as the existing encounters. It's like I am saying "I would like a burger, just one without all the salad on top," and you are saying "well you can have a hot dog, which has the same calories as a burger." Well true as that may be, a hot dog is not what I was asking for, it does not solve MY problem, even if it would solve YOUR problem if I were to accept it in substitution.

And since the experience we speak of is overcoming said challenge, you'll get effectively the same experience.

That is the experience you speak of, not the experience I speak of. Look, you don't have to agree with me, but you have to at least accept the things I am saying are the things I am saying. If you can't accept that what I'm asking for is what I'm asking for, then you have no hope of convincing me or anyone else of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"FrizzFreston.5290" said:I rather see easy raids/dungeons or even open world or even story mode replayability improvements. I really dont like copy pasta content.

It is practically impossible that they could create comparable
original
content to an easy mode raid, even if they spent 2-4 times as much time and effort producing it. Realistically it would likely take ten times as many manhours or more.

For all those complaining "an easy mode raid would just take too much time and effort, it's an unnecessary distraction to the devs!!!!!!," well, whether that is true or not, the time and effort needed to create something completely unique
instead
absolutely
must
be several times that.

It would require every ounce of time and effort that would go into making an easy mode of an existing raid encounter, PLUS the time to model unique enemies, PLUS the time to develop unique mechanics for them, PLUS the time to construct new environments, PLUS presumably a new set of rewards since the raiders haven't learned to share, PLUS the story and dialog that would merge all that together. the more of those things the easy raid content can share with the existing raids, the less time and effort the devs need to put into making it happen. That's not to say that easy mode raids would be effortless, it would take time, I'm just pointing out that easy mode raids would take
less
time than any alternative
other
than "nothing at all."

In my view thats just a quality vs quantity assessment. I rather have devs working on something new than adding content thats already in the game (I know you dont see it that way, but I do) Yes it probably will cost more time and more effort, but in my view it leaves the other content in its own place while focussing on something more unique that everyone potentially can enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ohoni.6057 said:Look, you don't have to agree with me, but you have to at least accept the things I am saying are the things I am saying. If you can't accept that what I'm asking for is what I'm asking for, then you have no hope of convincing me or anyone else of anything.

I don't think anyone can convince you. That's not the point of a debate - people very rarely change their stances anyway. The point is to clarify and extend my own position by getting it challenged from different view points. And perhaps sway those who don't yet have an established position themselves, by trying to explain mine.

That being said, I accept what you say, but I don't think it's right. I think you're chasing illusions which do not exist. I think you would realize that if you were ever to catch them, but you're unlikely to because it involves real effort and real money spent. And they won't be because it doesn't make any business sense to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FrizzFreston.5290 said:In my view thats just a quality vs quantity assessment. I rather have devs working on something new than adding content thats already in the game (I know you dont see it that way, but I do)

Well ok, but try to look at it unselfishly for a moment. Ok, right now, you have this content, and you would like them to make more of it for you. Fair enough. But right now a lot of other people don't have this content, and ANet can take the same amount of time and either create, say, 10 hours of new repeatable content for them, or one hour of new repeatable content for the both of you. Assuming an equal or greater number of them, wouldn't the larger amount of content be preferable overall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Look, you don't have to agree with me, but you have to at least accept the things I am saying are the things I am saying. If you can't accept that what I'm asking for is what I'm asking for, then you have no hope of convincing me or anyone else of anything.

I don't think anyone can convince you. That's not the point of a debate - people very rarely change their stances anyway. The point is to clarify and extend my own position by getting it challenged from different view points. And perhaps sway those who don't yet have an established position themselves, by trying to explain mine.

But that's not what you're doing, because you aren't challenging my position, you're ignoring it and talking past it, creating an imaginary position to attack. If you genuinely think that your position is superior to my own, then you could challenge it head on, rather than only challenging its shadow and ignoring its substance.

As an example, you might not agree that me having the Gorseval I want would be good for the game, you might not even agree that the Gorseval I claim to want would actually satisfy me, fair enough, but it does not benefit your argument to claim ignorance that the Gorseval I claim to want is even the Gorseval I claim to want, I have been quite clear as to exactly what I am talking about, so it does not in any way reflect positively on yourself or your position that you don't seem to be capable of understanding.

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...