Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Bladestrom.6425

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,999

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bladestrom.6425

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    What you are missing is that in ESO veteran trials give far better gear than the normal version.As for the question, why does ESO have "normal" Raids, this is a no-brainer, that's where players farm their gear, in Guild Wars 2 we don't have a concept of gear treadmill, maybe, to satisfy all those World of Warcraft does it, and ESO does it, people they should add a true gear treadmill to the game. You know, to be like those games.

    i'm not talking about gear, I sub to ESO and i enjoy raids casually, the gear is good enough and i get 10 man content.

    Yet gear is all the reason "casual" raids exist.

    look you guys are frantically, desperately trying to find holes in what i'm saying. ONCE AGAIN all im saying is there is a precedent for casual raids, thats it, thats all. Its a truth, not an opinion, fact.

    The precedent includes the complete package, which you are leaving out completely. "Casual" Raids being there to get gear for the higher tier Raids, and higher Raids having much better quality gear than normal Raids. THAT'S the precedent in other games, not that "Casual" Raids simply exist in other games. You are omitting half the truth, which makes your argument misleading and flawed at best.

    I know this, we all know this. in GW2 its skins, in other games its gearsets, that doesn't invalidate my point about millions of player playing casually. If you guys want to beleive that GW2 is the onbly AAA mmorpg in existance that somehow has casual players that would not like 10 man instances, you go on ahead.

    Fine, so let's introduce a subscription fee to GW2, reduce the amount of gem store skins which need to get sold and put the saved resources to add more in-game luxury skins. Based on that get easy and hard mode raids with even more unique skins in for every difficulty people would want to play.

    Absolutely doable. So, who is up for a monthly GW2 subscription?

    This doesn't account for devaluing gear of corse, so we'll just remove acquired skins on a quarterly cycle forcing people to reacquire them just as they have to for gear sets in other games.

    Strawmen, As i said, If you guys want to believe that GW2 is the only AAA mmorpg in existence that somehow has casual players that would not like 10 man instances, you go on ahead.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    What you are missing is that in ESO veteran trials give far better gear than the normal version.As for the question, why does ESO have "normal" Raids, this is a no-brainer, that's where players farm their gear, in Guild Wars 2 we don't have a concept of gear treadmill, maybe, to satisfy all those World of Warcraft does it, and ESO does it, people they should add a true gear treadmill to the game. You know, to be like those games.

    i'm not talking about gear, I sub to ESO and i enjoy raids casually, the gear is good enough and i get 10 man content.

    Yet gear is all the reason "casual" raids exist.

    look you guys are frantically, desperately trying to find holes in what i'm saying. ONCE AGAIN all im saying is there is a precedent for casual raids, thats it, thats all. Its a truth, not an opinion, fact.

    The precedent includes the complete package, which you are leaving out completely. "Casual" Raids being there to get gear for the higher tier Raids, and higher Raids having much better quality gear than normal Raids. THAT'S the precedent in other games, not that "Casual" Raids simply exist in other games. You are omitting half the truth, which makes your argument misleading and flawed at best.

    I know this, we all know this. in GW2 its skins, in other games its gearsets, that doesn't invalidate my point about millions of player playing casually. If you guys want to beleive that GW2 is the onbly AAA mmorpg in existance that somehow has casual players that would not like 10 man instances, you go on ahead.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    What you are missing is that in ESO veteran trials give far better gear than the normal version.As for the question, why does ESO have "normal" Raids, this is a no-brainer, that's where players farm their gear, in Guild Wars 2 we don't have a concept of gear treadmill, maybe, to satisfy all those World of Warcraft does it, and ESO does it, people they should add a true gear treadmill to the game. You know, to be like those games.

    i'm not talking about gear, I sub to ESO and i enjoy raids casually, the gear is good enough and i get 10 man content.

    Yet gear is all the reason "casual" raids exist.

    look you guys are frantically, desperately trying to find holes in what i'm saying. ONCE AGAIN all im saying is there is a precedent for casual raids, thats it, thats all. Its a truth, not an opinion, fact.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:@"vesica tempestas.1563"

    What you are missing is that in ESO veteran trials give far better gear than the normal version.As for the question, why does ESO have "normal" Raids, this is a no-brainer, that's where players farm their gear, in Guild Wars 2 we don't have a concept of gear treadmill, maybe, to satisfy all those World of Warcraft does it, and ESO does it, people they should add a true gear treadmill to the game. You know, to be like those games.

    i'm not talking about gear, I sub to ESO and i enjoy raids casually, the gear is good enough and i get 10 man content.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

    Absolutely, it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that Blizzard is re-releasing 1.12 after hundreds of millions of development into their game is a fact. Just as that ESO had a very rocky launch and had to go free to play to even remotely recover and is one of the only games which offers realm versus realm.

    All of those are facts. We can now take each of them individually and draw conclusions off of individual facts or try to look at the big picture and figure out what is going on overall.

    No one is denying that millions enjoy easy mode raids. People simply disagree that this fact is proof in support of easy mode raids for GW2 being a good idea.

    so lets get this straight, millions clearly like easy mode, Guild wars has millions of players most of which play casually.. On top of this, Guild wars 1 had easy mode raids. all of this precedence and somehow the conclusion is that all those casual players would not like 10 man instances lol. This kind of self centered thinking is a poison that has polluted mmorpg for a few years now.
    1. Guild Wars 2 does not have millions of players. 1.5 mill at best I guess.
    2. GW2 never had an easy mode. There were normal mode and hard mode. Same as raids here. Please stop lying.

    Rather than accusing people of 'lying' maybe read a bit more, I was referring to WOW and ESO. Once again my ONLY point is that there is demand in the mmorpg genre for easy mode raid, therefore this is a precedent that would ofc apply to GW2 players - GW2 players are the same species you know. Raiders in WOW freaked out in the same way before WOTLK and ESO had easy mode from nearly day one so this drama never happened.

    I think he was referring to this passage of you:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

    Absolutely, it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that Blizzard is re-releasing 1.12 after hundreds of millions of development into their game is a fact. Just as that ESO had a very rocky launch and had to go free to play to even remotely recover and is one of the only games which offers realm versus realm.

    All of those are facts. We can now take each of them individually and draw conclusions off of individual facts or try to look at the big picture and figure out what is going on overall.

    No one is denying that millions enjoy easy mode raids. People simply disagree that this fact is proof in support of easy mode raids for GW2 being a good idea.

    so lets get this straight, millions clearly like easy mode,
    Guild wars has millions of players most of which play casually..
    On top of this, Guild wars 1 had easy mode raids.
    all of this precedence and somehow the conclusion is that all those casual players would not like 10 man instances lol. This kind of self centered thinking is a poison that has polluted mmorpg for a few years now.

    You clearly stating that GW2 has millions of players AND that raids in GW1 were easy.

    aha, GW does indeed have millions of players, I'm not referring to concurrent play. And i'm not saying millions of players will come from ESO and WOW, i'm saying there is a precedent for casual players enjoying casual raids in all AAA mmorpg.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Miellyn.6847 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

    Absolutely, it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that Blizzard is re-releasing 1.12 after hundreds of millions of development into their game is a fact. Just as that ESO had a very rocky launch and had to go free to play to even remotely recover and is one of the only games which offers realm versus realm.

    All of those are facts. We can now take each of them individually and draw conclusions off of individual facts or try to look at the big picture and figure out what is going on overall.

    No one is denying that millions enjoy easy mode raids. People simply disagree that this fact is proof in support of easy mode raids for GW2 being a good idea.

    so lets get this straight, millions clearly like easy mode, Guild wars has millions of players most of which play casually.. On top of this, Guild wars 1 had easy mode raids. all of this precedence and somehow the conclusion is that all those casual players would not like 10 man instances lol. This kind of self centered thinking is a poison that has polluted mmorpg for a few years now.
    1. Guild Wars 2 does not have millions of players. 1.5 mill at best I guess.
    2. GW2 never had an easy mode. There were normal mode and hard mode. Same as raids here. Please stop lying.

    Rather than accusing people of 'lying' maybe read a bit more, I was referring to WOW and ESO. Once again my ONLY point is that there is demand in the mmorpg genre for easy mode raid, therefore this is a precedent that would ofc apply to GW2 players - GW2 players are the same species you know. Raiders in WOW freaked out in the same way before WOTLK and ESO had easy mode from nearly day one so this drama never happened.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

    Absolutely, it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that Blizzard is re-releasing 1.12 after hundreds of millions of development into their game is a fact. Just as that ESO had a very rocky launch and had to go free to play to even remotely recover and is one of the only games which offers realm versus realm.

    All of those are facts. We can now take each of them individually and draw conclusions off of individual facts or try to look at the big picture and figure out what is going on overall.

    No one is denying that millions enjoy easy mode raids. People simply disagree that this fact is proof in support of easy mode raids for GW2 being a good idea.

    so lets get this straight, millions clearly like easy mode, Guild wars has millions of players most of which play casually.. On top of this, Guild wars 1 had easy mode raids. all of this precedence and somehow the conclusion is that all those casual players would not like 10 man instances lol. This kind of self centered thinking is a poison that has polluted mmorpg for a few years now.

    I must have missed those GW1 easy mode raids. The end game zones of GW1 were by far more difficult than 95% of all GW2 content. I'm not sure what you are referring to here?

    I'm to tired to answer AGAIN to all these points and quite frankly, I doubt you'd care or listen.

    My point stands that posting facts without context means nothing, especially the LFR WoW situation. Not sure where basic logic is self centered but let me rebuttal this: the self centered attitude that one needs to be able to gain all rewards with minimal effort and/or solo is the disease which has polluted MMORPGS for years now.

    your 'context' is flawed, you can 'equat' numbers to cancel out these millions of players from existence, but that's not reality. as for loot, raiders may obsess about that, but I wasnt talknig about loot, i was talking about demand. Anyway this is going nowhere, people will not listen to what they do not want to hear, im off to raid in ESO.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

    Absolutely, it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that Blizzard is re-releasing 1.12 after hundreds of millions of development into their game is a fact. Just as that ESO had a very rocky launch and had to go free to play to even remotely recover and is one of the only games which offers realm versus realm.

    All of those are facts. We can now take each of them individually and draw conclusions off of individual facts or try to look at the big picture and figure out what is going on overall.

    No one is denying that millions enjoy easy mode raids. People simply disagree that this fact is proof in support of easy mode raids for GW2 being a good idea.

    so lets get this straight, millions clearly like easy mode, Guild wars has millions of players most of which play casually.. On top of this, Guild wars 1 had easy mode raids. all of this precedence and somehow the conclusion is that all those casual players would not like 10 man instances lol. This kind of self centered thinking is a poison that has polluted mmorpg for a few years now.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

    Saying millions like something after a game has lost millions of players simply shows that not everything done was disproved of by the player base. Having a developer re-release a way earlier version of their game which has had hundreds of millions in development since then shows that they've noticed that they lost a very huge crowd of their initial players. This is even more evident if the games versions are competing with themselves.

    Without context stating that millions like something is of 0 value.

    you do know im referring to ESO as well right? ESO has millions of players now its 2nd behind GW in my opinion. In any case, i was stating a fact, millions like easy mode. You can apply any context you like to that statement, it doesnt change the fact.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @mortrialus.3062 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:My point was simply millions play easy mode raids, clearly players like it. Try reflecting on why you are so
    horribly terrifyingly offended
    by this really simple obvious truth.

    Yeah you can go ahead and cut that kitten out. Stop projecting on to other people.

    You pointed out WoW has tons of people currently doing easy mode raids. I'm sure that's true. I'm pointing out that back when Nostalrius was around there were more people playing older versions of WoW than there were playing live WoW. Enough people to convince Blizzard to release classic WoW after refusing to for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, easy mode raids have a certain appeal. I can't deny that. It's the same appeal Istan farms have. But you can't deny the way classic WoW did things had it's own appeal considering how many people are still playing that as well. That's all I'm saying. And it's be nice if you could actually respond to me like a grown up and have a grown up conversation with someone.

    I didnt deny class wow had good stuff, all i said was millions like easy mode raids. That's it, the rest is just ducking and diving from what i can see.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @mortrialus.3062 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

    Oh, you mean large-scale accessible events like the Octovine? Or the Jungle Wurm? I agree, these have their place.

    lol ok Feonar, we are not stupid people are we.

    So what exactly is your point? You can't make accessible endgame. It's pretty much an oxymoron. You want accessible events? You get those. I really fail to see the point of adding accessible versions of the raids - they'd be the same experience the game already offers.

    what are you talking about? all the other significant AAA mmorpg have easy mode raids that are accessible to all without the time commitment tightly tuned raids require This is like ground hog day, we know this, its been discussed to death, there is precedent, its common sense blah blah blah. You
    may not
    see the 'point' in adding accessible raids because you're part of the little nich that has 10 man instances tailored to your needs, well great, now what about the rest of the player base.

    The most significant other MMORPG with raiding, WoW, had more people playing on Vanilla, BC, and WotLK servers where there were no easy mode raids until Blizzard forced Nostalrius to close down. According to server population analytics Draenor's active user based dropped below 1 million players for the first time in WoW's history. If easy mode raids were so good for WoW's health, why did more people play older versions of the game that than the Live WoW? It got so bad that Blizzard had to announce Classic WoW official legacy servers years before they were ready to be implemented.

    your deluding yourself, its quite sad really.. Go check current stats for WOW and ESo to name but 2. MILLIONS happily raid in easy mode every week. Maybe you were not aware of this but normal mode raiding population destroys the little niche that likes hardcore, your outdated, the world moved on a long long time ago as the player base matured.

    Which is why Blizzard felt the need to rerelease WoW patch 1.12.

    Again, millions more players were on private classic WoW servers compared to live, especially when Nostalrius was still a thing.

    all very interesting, but has no relevance to the fact that millions enjoy easy mode raiding every week now and for the last 5 -10 years. World has moved on.

    And so has the vast majority of WoW's player base. Much of which moved on to private older versions of the game before easy modes were added. This isn't "Oh the population naturally died down." there are millions of players playing older versions of the exact same game before they added easy modes.

    Your still not getting it are you, millions STILL raid normal mode in WOW and ESO. Players returning from private servers would boost this number if anything not reduce it lol.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @mortrialus.3062 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

    Oh, you mean large-scale accessible events like the Octovine? Or the Jungle Wurm? I agree, these have their place.

    lol ok Feonar, we are not stupid people are we.

    So what exactly is your point? You can't make accessible endgame. It's pretty much an oxymoron. You want accessible events? You get those. I really fail to see the point of adding accessible versions of the raids - they'd be the same experience the game already offers.

    what are you talking about? all the other significant AAA mmorpg have easy mode raids that are accessible to all without the time commitment tightly tuned raids require This is like ground hog day, we know this, its been discussed to death, there is precedent, its common sense blah blah blah. You
    may not
    see the 'point' in adding accessible raids because you're part of the little nich that has 10 man instances tailored to your needs, well great, now what about the rest of the player base.

    The most significant other MMORPG with raiding, WoW, had more people playing on Vanilla, BC, and WotLK servers where there were no easy mode raids until Blizzard forced Nostalrius to close down. According to server population analytics Draenor's active user based dropped below 1 million players for the first time in WoW's history. If easy mode raids were so good for WoW's health, why did more people play older versions of the game that than the Live WoW? It got so bad that Blizzard had to announce Classic WoW official legacy servers years before they were ready to be implemented.

    your deluding yourself, its quite sad really.. Go check current stats for WOW and ESo to name but 2. MILLIONS happily raid in easy mode every week. Maybe you were not aware of this but normal mode raiding population destroys the little niche that likes hardcore, your outdated, the world moved on a long long time ago as the player base matured.

    Which is why Blizzard felt the need to rerelease WoW patch 1.12.

    Again, millions more players were on private classic WoW servers compared to live, especially when Nostalrius was still a thing.

    all very interesting, but has no relevance to the fact that millions enjoy easy mode raiding every week now and for the last 5 -10 years. World has moved on.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @mortrialus.3062 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

    Oh, you mean large-scale accessible events like the Octovine? Or the Jungle Wurm? I agree, these have their place.

    lol ok Feonar, we are not stupid people are we.

    So what exactly is your point? You can't make accessible endgame. It's pretty much an oxymoron. You want accessible events? You get those. I really fail to see the point of adding accessible versions of the raids - they'd be the same experience the game already offers.

    what are you talking about? all the other significant AAA mmorpg have easy mode raids that are accessible to all without the time commitment tightly tuned raids require This is like ground hog day, we know this, its been discussed to death, there is precedent, its common sense blah blah blah. You
    may not
    see the 'point' in adding accessible raids because you're part of the little nich that has 10 man instances tailored to your needs, well great, now what about the rest of the player base.

    The most significant other MMORPG with raiding, WoW, had more people playing on Vanilla, BC, and WotLK servers where there were no easy mode raids until Blizzard forced Nostalrius to close down. According to server population analytics Draenor's active user based dropped below 1 million players for the first time in WoW's history. If easy mode raids were so good for WoW's health, why did more people play older versions of the game that than the Live WoW? It got so bad that Blizzard had to announce Classic WoW official legacy servers years before they were ready to be implemented.

    your deluding yourself, its quite sad really.. Go check current stats for WOW and ESo to name but 2. MILLIONS happily raid in easy mode every week. Maybe you were not aware of this but normal mode raiding population destroys the little niche that likes hardcore, your outdated, the world moved on a long long time ago as the player base matured.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

    Oh, you mean large-scale accessible events like the Octovine? Or the Jungle Wurm? I agree, these have their place.

    lol ok Feonar, we are not stupid people are we.

    So what exactly is your point? You can't make accessible endgame. It's pretty much an oxymoron. You want accessible events? You get those. I really fail to see the point of adding accessible versions of the raids - they'd be the same experience the game already offers.

    what are you talking about? all the other significant AAA mmorpg have easy mode raids that are accessible to all without the time commitment tightly tuned raids require This is like ground hog day, we know this, its been discussed to death, there is precedent, its common sense blah blah blah. You may not see the 'point' in adding accessible raids because you're part of the little nich that has 10 man instances tailored to your needs, well great, now what about the rest of the player base.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

    Oh, you mean large-scale accessible events like the Octovine? Or the Jungle Wurm? I agree, these have their place.

    lol ok Feonar, we are not stupid people are we.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @"Feanor.2358" said: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.Yes, basically you're right. Raids are nothing more than 10-man t4 fractals and they shouldn't have been treated as something else, as if the word "raids" suddenly gave the content any prestige. Of course, that brings up again to the problem at hand - not only these fractals for some reason have their own reward structure, separated from other fractals, they also lack their own t1 versions.So, i guess we should fix both of those mistakes, right?

    Raids are just 10 man instances. difficulty is simply an attribute. The elitism surrounding raids is behaviour.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @nia.4725 said:

    @nia.4725 said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Ohoni.6057 said:

    @"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

    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.

    About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

    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.

    And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

    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.

    But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.
    And yet,
    as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have
    an option.
    It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,
    they can still reach their goal eventually.

    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.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Siegy.7092 said:I enjoy coming back to this thread every once in a while, even having some snacks while reading it. The amount of entitlement and cheap agendas here are cringeworthy at best. With the amount of time and energy that some spent writing and arguing here most would have already learned all encounters and gotten their Envoy armors on 2 characters. If you want something, work hard for it and stop making silly demands and blaming others for your own limitations, lazyness and incompetence.

    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.

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

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @STIHL.2489 said:LoL.. before the Tiers, all Fractals were classified as
    Hardcore
    content regardless of tier, so it's no surprise to anyone they felt dead, it was only after they get revised to Tiers, making them more accessible to a larger demographic of gamers that the content truly came alive.Fractals from 1 to 25 were the same difficulty before and after Heart of Thorns. They simply added the new carrots.

    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.

    Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said: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.

    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.

    Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:very convenient to be sure.

    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.

GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...