Bladestrom.6425

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well. Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing. ye making raids 5 manable addresses 0 issues. The issue is the content gap, i.e: wvw available for casual to hard core - yesDoes 5 man instances have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does pvp have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does open world have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes. Does raids (>=8 players say) have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - not yet in GW2, available everywhere else. Which leads me to a different point, what if Anet introduced easier 8 MAN raids, and kept 10 man as it is? now there's a way to get a win win here. That's false. pvp has not content tailored to all players. all players get mixed until skill level gets its way through mmr rating and the best players get higher ranks. but still high ranks get mixed with lower ranks, being that a source of big frustrations, sided matches and great toxicity open world has not content tailored for all players. there's no ow challenging enough for hardcore players. raids are The Hardcore Part of PvE. so many years and so many pages and you still don't get this. your wrong, pvp does have content for all players including hardcore, its called ranked, your confusing balance with accessibility. And hardcore players have access to open world content, the challenge is there if they want it. and yet again you are wrong, TUNED raiding is for hardcore players, raids are also tuned for non hardcore players - this is not wow. ranked is the same content as unranked, the only difference is the level of expectations and rewards, but the content is exactly the same. so no you can't say that ranked is content for hardcores and unranked for casuals wth. yeah you can say that hardcores are competitive and so they play ranked but ranked right now is a lot more about rewards than the leaderboards. ranked is played by all types of players, not only hardcores. xd open world content has no challenge. are you going to say that hot metas are challenging? open world bosses? shadow behemoth? what part of ow is challenging and suited for hardcore players, in your opinion? because you're saying that there is, but you're not giving any example of that. i have yet to find any ow content that is challenging enough for me, and i'm far from being a hardcore raider. still, ow is numb and boring af for me. raids are for hardcore players, it's really incredible that after all this time you still haven't understood all those anet statements about the purpose of raids. you can argue that raids should be aimed for a wider range of players, you could argue that raids should not be only hardcore content and that's fine, but not this. like really. that's completely different from accessibility of course, are you now going to say that recurrent lie that casuals do not have access to raids? i was probably raiding on paper when you were still in nappies, I know what raiding is. Raiding is an instance supporting more than 5 player generally speaking. difficulty is irrelevant from that perspective. However raiding is the premium end of pve for hardcore players and games like WOW. Hardcore raiding being the end all of PVE died oh nearly a decade ago. the rest of your chat has got nothing to do with my points, whether or not the ranking process works has nothing to do with accessibility, and open world being easy does not make it inaccessible to hardcore players (open world is not about difficulty). Raider obsession with difficulty is not the be all and end oll of mmorpg, your a niche market, get over yourself. ps read the thread, we know whats Anets comments are, this thread is not about Anet's current position. If difficulty is irrelevant, then easy mode raids exist - they're called T1 fractals. Because what is even more irrelevant is the player number limit. The only reason raids are considered premium endgame is because they are not trivial. Which - surprise, surprise - is only because of their difficulty.t1 fractals is 5 man and ofc number of players changes game dynamics. Let's not be obtuse and lets not pretend games like WOW and ESO don't exist where there are a literally millions of players playing raids with > 5 players that are tuned to be accessible with little preparation.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well. Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing. ye making raids 5 manable addresses 0 issues. The issue is the content gap, i.e: wvw available for casual to hard core - yesDoes 5 man instances have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does pvp have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does open world have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes. Does raids (>=8 players say) have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - not yet in GW2, available everywhere else. Which leads me to a different point, what if Anet introduced easier 8 MAN raids, and kept 10 man as it is? now there's a way to get a win win here. That's false. pvp has not content tailored to all players. all players get mixed until skill level gets its way through mmr rating and the best players get higher ranks. but still high ranks get mixed with lower ranks, being that a source of big frustrations, sided matches and great toxicity open world has not content tailored for all players. there's no ow challenging enough for hardcore players. raids are The Hardcore Part of PvE. so many years and so many pages and you still don't get this.your wrong, pvp does have content for all players including hardcore, its called ranked, your confusing balance with accessibility. And hardcore players have access to open world content, the challenge is there if they want it. and yet again you are wrong, TUNED raiding is for hardcore players, raids are also tuned for non hardcore players - this is not wow.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well. Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing. ye making raids 5 manable addresses 0 issues. The issue is the content gap, i.e: wvw available for casual to hard core - yesDoes 5 man instances have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does pvp have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does open world have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes. Does raids (>=8 players say) have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - not yet in GW2, available everywhere else. Which leads me to a different point, what if Anet introduced easier 8 MAN raids, and kept 10 man as it is? now there's a way to get a win win here.

Its opinions like this that gives raiders a bad name unfortunately with their 'must be lazy blah blah' attitude. The majority of players are actually adults with many years experience playing mmorpg including raids and have good reasons for not having the time to devote large timeblocks to a game and want raiding in the style you get on every other AAA mmorpg out there. This is 2018, not 2005.

Actually they have made a ton changes to fractals over the time (see patch notes) to make them more accessible, then in addition they were not balanced for full ascended gear etc etc so that's another source of scaling down of difficulty(henc now people solo some of them), then the potions became easier to gain, and so on and so forth. Its actually a really good point, Fractals is a great template and evidence of the benefits of having looser tuned instances.

It's a great characteristic indeed. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that it is my choice to be altruistic or not. And you have no right to demand it of me. i never said 'demand', that was a strawman argument by someone who got triggered, but i do expect it of myself, and I don't like it when others are selfish. Personally i think people are triggered here because they know deep down their behaviour is suspect at times. There's certainly a gross lack of empathy going on.

indeed ive talked about altruism in a group before. You cant force it on people but its a great characteristic - quite the opposite to the behaviours lauded here.

Do you know what the word "selfish" mean?"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."Joining a group with the expectation of being carried and expecting them to compensate for you is the very definition of the word selfish. get over yourself, players is general do not join groups to be 'carried' and that has nothing to do with the original scenario and is a strawman (i left because of other bad behaviour) walking away is rude if the group didn't wanted you to leave. In any case my original point was about being a team player, either do or dont, but at least be a man and own your decision instead of blaming others.

very convenient to be sure.

The selfish one is the one that joined when he shouldn'tIf it reaches a point when someone needs to leave the group, it's not their fault but of some selfish person who joined the group with the intention of getting carried.Usually by not being honest but selfish and greedy. now your referring to anecdote.

I think every player alone can decide if their own objective and perspective is more important or not. The way YOU say other player's isn't important and they are just automatons, tools to allow others to get what they want. Who is the selfish here? well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group. So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others? are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no? What you said:First that some of the players: Even if compensating is against their "own objectives and perspective on pleasure"So basically you want some of the players to be the "automatons" and compensate for the others, disregarding completely their own objective and perspective.Which one is more important and who decides?5 people in a group, either be selfish or be part of the group, you can obfuscate this as much as you like with argument, but this is what it boils down to and what i'm referring to.

I think every player alone can decide if their own objective and perspective is more important or not. The way YOU say other player's isn't important and they are just automatons, tools to allow others to get what they want. Who is the selfish here? well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group. So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others? are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no? And that's precisely why the other 4 have no right to make any demands of me. If I feel like it, I'll stay. If I don't, I won't. And no matter what I choose, I'll be right to do it. Simple as that. im not demanding anything, i'm saying all 5 have equal rights, so be part of the group, oir be selfish, your choice.

I think every player alone can decide if their own objective and perspective is more important or not. The way YOU say other player's isn't important and they are just automatons, tools to allow others to get what they want. Who is the selfish here? well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group. So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others?are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no?

I think every player alone can decide if their own objective and perspective is more important or not. The way YOU say other player's isn't important and they are just automatons, tools to allow others to get what they want. Who is the selfish here? well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group.

You seriously don't realise that your behaviour is one of the sources of toxicity? i.e emo quitting mid run because the group does not satisfy your personal needs, rather than playing to the strength of the group. Imagine if every player done that. How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes? I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters. This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time. In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its current ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive. Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently. i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run. Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html to summarise: 1.) Give people the benefit of the doubtDon’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself). If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. So, have you sought first to understand what I told you? It is MY free time, it is MY decision how and with whom to spend it. I'll carry people if and when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like being carried. It. Is. My. Decision. No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from. I am adapting. Whenever I find a conflict in expectations, I walk away and find players who want the same as me.That's not adapting, thats not being able to commit and stropping off and leaving 4 other people in the lurch. In fact it demonstrates an inability to adapt.

You seriously don't realise that your behaviour is one of the sources of toxicity? i.e emo quitting mid run because the group does not satisfy your personal needs, rather than playing to the strength of the group. Imagine if every player done that. How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes? I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters. This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time. In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its current ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive. Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently. i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run. Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html to summarise: 1.) Give people the benefit of the doubtDon’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself). If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. So, have you sought first to understand what I told you? It is MY free time, it is MY decision how and with whom to spend it. I'll carry people if and when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like being carried. It. Is. My. Decision.No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

This isn't about different developer teams, that need to work together on a project, but more like the exact same developer team, working inside the same room.It's like telling a member of the same team to "suck it up" and work harder to compensate for the lack of skill or laziness of their co-workers. While being paid the same.I can see a lot of issues with that. well that's life and reality, developers in the same room do not in fact have the same skills, that's not how the profession works (e.g someone has high cognitive ability and may gravitate towards algorithms, someone else has a highly logical thought processes and may enjoy componentization and design patterns etc etc. Anyway, it was merely an example of a social grouping, so release the strawman. ps, telling someone else to 'suck it up' is a tell that they are inexperienced working in a group, and developers in a project group rarely get paid the same :)

You seriously don't realise that your behaviour is one of the sources of toxicity? i.e emo quitting mid run because the group does not satisfy your personal needs, rather than playing to the strength of the group. Imagine if every player done that. How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes? I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters. This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time. In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its current ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive. Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently.i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run. Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html to summarise: 1.) Give people the benefit of the doubt Don’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself).If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg.

You seriously don't realise that your behaviour is one of the sources of toxicity? i.e emo quitting mid run because the group does not satisfy your personal needs, rather than playing to the strength of the group. Imagine if every player done that. How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes?I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters. This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time. In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its current ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive.

But that's a content you came to enjoy. Was there never content in the game that you never enjoyed? Like I said, I agree with the idea that content can draw you to an area, there can be portions that require you to spend a little time doing a specific thing, and if you really enjoy it, then great, you can keep doing it. If you really don't enjoy it though, especially if the goal takes months to earn, then they should let you do something else instead. But none of what you describe could be compared at all to raiding. You describe minor inconveniences and half-week grinds, when what we're talking about is a multi-month grind of very complex and deliberately annoying content. Apples and oranges. But again, that can be accomplished with a short term goal, it doesn't require a long term one. Why is it good for the game for WvW to be a thing, in the abstract? If people don't want to do it, why should they have to? Is it worth spending developer resources on the mode if people only do it because the developers bribe them into it? Wouldn't it just be better if players didn't play that mode, and instead those resources were spent on the content they actually wanted to play? Existing WVW players (and indeed all potential players) need long term goals, so Anet added them to wvw to fill the gap. WVW already had a ton of short term goals. Other players got attracted to WVW as a result as the overall content package became more attractive.

See, Unlike you, I don't want to deprive you of anything That's your own conviction. Mine is that you will deprive me of something, regardless if you realize this or not. Oh dear how mean of me.. so tell me.. outside of self serving ego stroking, what would I be depriving you of? Possibly the opportunity to play raids at all, by starving them of the required playerbase.In any case, more raid releases, as the developers would need to waste time to rebalance all the existing raids for no good reason. Could make the same argument that they should scrap wvw and pvp because it could make expac and living world faster to complete and ship. Yes and do you know why they don't? Because it's content marketed for a specific demographic such that that group of people could get interested in GW2. Please tell me which group of people would get interested to play GW2 because their are easy mode raids? Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would. So no, it's NOT about marketing to that group of players. Instanced content however makes it impossible to find out if you would "enjoy" that kind of playstyle. If you can't get in or your group wipes constantly and you waste 10 people's time because you can't figure it out etc (and don't want to sit through and watch 100 videos etc) but would like to just freaking play it... So while it might be fun for some people who feel like it's "fun" to spend hours of time watching a video about how to play then spend however long trying to find a group of people to play it through and then maybe completing the content. Sure, go ahead and tell people again that it's "marketed" for that type of person. Not everyone knows what is "for them" till they try it and when you have instanced content, well it's obvious that you can't just "try" it. The point is they introduced raids to pull more people in with the HOT expansion. to market to a specific kind of player. Honestly i don't really see where you're argument would prove me wrong. Rather it explains quite nicely why you should lock rewards to specific content. Well beyond the fact that HoT was a major catastrophic failure... I can't see why this was not a brilliant idea. A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion. A lot of people found reasons to complain about HoT. It doesn't make it a failure. A lot of people always find reasons to complain about everything. LOL.. what.. did you think that because HoT failed big time they would cease making Living World? Really? And PoF is nothing like HoT. ? hot was a success both commercially and technically and introduced a ton of content. No it wasn't, in fact, Colin openly admitted as he left the Studio, that HoT didn't go over nearly as well as they had hoped.'nearly as well as they had hoped' does not equate to failure. If it was a big time failure they would not have created another expansion along same lines.

See, Unlike you, I don't want to deprive you of anything That's your own conviction. Mine is that you will deprive me of something, regardless if you realize this or not. Oh dear how mean of me.. so tell me.. outside of self serving ego stroking, what would I be depriving you of? Possibly the opportunity to play raids at all, by starving them of the required playerbase.In any case, more raid releases, as the developers would need to waste time to rebalance all the existing raids for no good reason. Could make the same argument that they should scrap wvw and pvp because it could make expac and living world faster to complete and ship. Yes and do you know why they don't? Because it's content marketed for a specific demographic such that that group of people could get interested in GW2. Please tell me which group of people would get interested to play GW2 because their are easy mode raids? Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would. So no, it's NOT about marketing to that group of players. Instanced content however makes it impossible to find out if you would "enjoy" that kind of playstyle. If you can't get in or your group wipes constantly and you waste 10 people's time because you can't figure it out etc (and don't want to sit through and watch 100 videos etc) but would like to just freaking play it... So while it might be fun for some people who feel like it's "fun" to spend hours of time watching a video about how to play then spend however long trying to find a group of people to play it through and then maybe completing the content. Sure, go ahead and tell people again that it's "marketed" for that type of person. Not everyone knows what is "for them" till they try it and when you have instanced content, well it's obvious that you can't just "try" it. The point is they introduced raids to pull more people in with the HOT expansion. to market to a specific kind of player. Honestly i don't really see where you're argument would prove me wrong. Rather it explains quite nicely why you should lock rewards to specific content. Well beyond the fact that HoT was a major catastrophic failure... I can't see why this was not a brilliant idea. A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion. A lot of people found reasons to complain about HoT. It doesn't make it a failure. A lot of people always find reasons to complain about everything. LOL.. what.. did you think that because HoT failed big time they would cease making Living World? Really? And PoF is nothing like HoT.? hot was a success both commercially and technically and introduced a ton of content.

You seriously don't realise that your behaviour is one of the sources of toxicity? i.e emo quitting mid run because the group does not satisfy your personal needs, rather than playing to the strength of the group. Imagine if every player done that.

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence. This solution also has many holes. In theory it's fine but, first of all the Raids that provide access to the Legendary Armor are part of Heart of Thorns. If I was Anet I wouldn't add such a high prestigious reward to so old content. Creating a brand new Legendary Armor skin for Heart of Thorns owners is wasted resources and wasted time that could be spent making new skins for the next expansion... Heart of Thorns is done already, no new reward will ever be created specifically for it (unless it's a gem store glider) Further, what about the Path of Fire Raids? We have one now Hall of Chains, it makes sense to get another Raid to finish the Legendary trinket before the next expansion. What exactly would an easy mode for Hall of Chains provide? Obviously you can't expect players to have both expansions to get Legendary armor, for marketing reasons, so Hall of Chains (and the next Raid) need something else. The way I see it, if modes are to be added to the Raid, is to make sure the next expansion's Raids are created from scratch to support tiers, something the current Raids were never designed for, and add a new Legendary Armor skin to the "normal" version there. Then add another Legendary item, amulet, accessory, back item, to the Hard version. That way you make sure both modes get players, there is no conflict of interest, since both modes offer different "end" rewards. And by making the Raid from the start tier-friendly you skip the problem of adding code later, which has the tendency of breaking things completely. So add more Legendary items to raiding? Yeah no thanks, I prefer they spread the trinkets and so forth among the other game modes too. really, i think anyone who would do the instance would love legendary items. Visualise that you wanted to do the instances , suddenly trinkets that get sharded straight away these days are not so attractive right, but then again you dont really think this is an attractive reward do you. A new legendary skin for normal mode and a bunch of raiding trinkets for hard mode was what I was referring to.ah apologies misunderstood, that makes sense and seems reasonable :)

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence. This solution also has many holes. In theory it's fine but, first of all the Raids that provide access to the Legendary Armor are part of Heart of Thorns. If I was Anet I wouldn't add such a high prestigious reward to so old content. Creating a brand new Legendary Armor skin for Heart of Thorns owners is wasted resources and wasted time that could be spent making new skins for the next expansion... Heart of Thorns is done already, no new reward will ever be created specifically for it (unless it's a gem store glider) Further, what about the Path of Fire Raids? We have one now Hall of Chains, it makes sense to get another Raid to finish the Legendary trinket before the next expansion. What exactly would an easy mode for Hall of Chains provide? Obviously you can't expect players to have both expansions to get Legendary armor, for marketing reasons, so Hall of Chains (and the next Raid) need something else. The way I see it, if modes are to be added to the Raid, is to make sure the next expansion's Raids are created from scratch to support tiers, something the current Raids were never designed for, and add a new Legendary Armor skin to the "normal" version there. Then add another Legendary item, amulet, accessory, back item, to the Hard version. That way you make sure both modes get players, there is no conflict of interest, since both modes offer different "end" rewards. And by making the Raid from the start tier-friendly you skip the problem of adding code later, which has the tendency of breaking things completely. So add more Legendary items to raiding? Yeah no thanks, I prefer they spread the trinkets and so forth among the other game modes too.really, i think anyone who would do the instance would love legendary items. Visualise that you wanted to do the instances , suddenly trinkets that get sharded straight away these days are not so attractive right, but then again you dont really think this is an attractive reward do you.