[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:5 people in a group, either be selfish or be part of the group, you can obfuscate this as much as you like with argument, but this is what it boils down to and what i'm referring to.

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

now your referring to anecdote.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

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

well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group.

So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others?

are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no?

What you said:First that some of the players:

they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasurebut some of them need to adapt and carry the others:and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness

Even if compensating is against their "own objectives and perspective on pleasure"So basically you want some of the players to be the "automatons" and compensate for the others, disregarding completely their own objective and perspective.Which one is more important and who decides?

5 people in a group, either be selfish or be part of the group, you can obfuscate this as much as you like with argument, but this is what it boils down to and what i'm referring to.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

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

well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group.

So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others?

are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no?

And that's precisely why the other 4 have no right to make any demands of me. If I feel like it, I'll stay. If I don't, I won't. And no matter what I choose, I'll be right to do it. Simple as that.

im not demanding anything, i'm saying all 5 have equal rights, so be part of the group, oir be selfish, your choice.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

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

well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group.

So they are more important than I am? Who is the one to notice which player is more important than others?

are you for real? all 5 are important as each other no?

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

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

well when you are in a group you can either be selfish, or be part of the group.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:2 minutes less cleartime is worth every toxicity. I play that content to be as efficient as possible and if my party is bad then I just leave. If party is toxic to me I leave. But It is interesting that you say how fractlas are soooo toxic yet I only met 2 players that were rude to me In fractals and I have benn playing them for 2 years.

Looks like If you know what you are doing then noone is rude to you

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

How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes?

I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters.

This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time.

In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its

current

ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive.

Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently.

i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run.

Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html

to summarise:

1.) Give people the benefit of the doubt

2. Don’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself).

If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg.

So, have you sought first to understand what I told you? It is

MY

free time, it is

MY

decision how and with whom to spend it. I'll carry people if and when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like being carried.

It. Is. My. Decision.

No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

I am adapting. Whenever I find a conflict in expectations, I walk away and find players who want the same as me.

That's not adapting, thats not being able to commit and stropping off and leaving 4 other people in the lurch. In fact it demonstrates an inability to adapt.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:2 minutes less cleartime is worth every toxicity. I play that content to be as efficient as possible and if my party is bad then I just leave. If party is toxic to me I leave. But It is interesting that you say how fractlas are soooo toxic yet I only met 2 players that were rude to me In fractals and I have benn playing them for 2 years.

Looks like If you know what you are doing then noone is rude to you

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

How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes?

I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters.

This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time.

In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its

current

ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive.

Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently.

i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run.

Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html

to summarise:

1.) Give people the benefit of the doubt

2. Don’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself).

If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg.

So, have you sought first to understand what I told you? It is

MY

free time, it is

MY

decision how and with whom to spend it. I'll carry people if and when I feel like it, not when someone else feels like being carried.

It. Is. My. Decision.

No you are mistaken, you are playing with a group of 4 other a REAL people, the context here is a mmorpg, not a single player rpg. Those other REAL people also have their own objectives and perspective on pleasure that are just as important as yours. they are not automatons there to be just they way you want to be to give you pleasure. So like it or not you need to adapt as do the other people, this is civilisation in action. And this is why good players adapt and support, because otherwise your just being selfish and ultimately destructive - i.e the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg. Adapt and have fun, or be self centered and to hang with other people, spot where the drama and unpleasantness comes from.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"vesica tempestas.1563" said:This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles.

This isn't about different developer teams, that need to work together on a project, but more like the exact same developer team, working inside the same room.It's like telling a member of the same team to "suck it up" and work harder to compensate for the lack of skill or laziness of their co-workers. While being paid the same.I can see a lot of issues with that.

well that's life and reality, developers in the same room do not in fact have the same skills, that's not how the profession works (e.g someone has high cognitive ability and may gravitate towards algorithms, someone else has a highly logical thought processes and may enjoy componentization and design patterns etc etc. Anyway, it was merely an example of a social grouping, so release the strawman. ps, telling someone else to 'suck it up' is a tell that they are inexperienced working in a group, and developers in a project group rarely get paid the same :)

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:2 minutes less cleartime is worth every toxicity. I play that content to be as efficient as possible and if my party is bad then I just leave. If party is toxic to me I leave. But It is interesting that you say how fractlas are soooo toxic yet I only met 2 players that were rude to me In fractals and I have benn playing them for 2 years.

Looks like If you know what you are doing then noone is rude to you

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

How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes?

I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters.

This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time.

In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its

current

ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive.

Don't bring society and business into this. It is a game, we play it for fun, not to make money or to make the society better. If you find it fun to carry people, that's completely fine. It does not mean everyone would, or should, feel the same. It does not oblige people who do not find that fun to participate, either. I get greater satisfaction when the group performs well. So that's what I do. It's a personal choice and you can't blame people for choosing differently.

i was talking about human behaviour, and what works for group dynamics - maybe look up what the word society actually means - it applies to mmorpg. So, yes you do need to carry people in life (and especially games) all the time - i'm assuming you are aware all people are different with different skill sets, and that means carrying people happens all the time whether you are aware of it or like it, so you can either go blind, or try to understand why groups tick, and why that emo crash just happened in your run.

Have a read of this, it applies to everywhere including gaming. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-robbins/compassion_b_1164090.html

to summarise:

1.) Give people the benefit of the doubt

2. Don’t take things personally3.) Look for the good.4.) Seek first to understand.5.) Be gentle with others (and especially with yourself).

If a player don't get this, then they are probably contributing to the anti social problem plaguing mmorpg.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:2 minutes less cleartime is worth every toxicity. I play that content to be as efficient as possible and if my party is bad then I just leave. If party is toxic to me I leave. But It is interesting that you say how fractlas are soooo toxic yet I only met 2 players that were rude to me In fractals and I have benn playing them for 2 years.

Looks like If you know what you are doing then noone is rude to you

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

How do you play to the strength of someone that's completely clueless, runs the wrong build and causes wipes?

I see this all the time, weak players, clearly inexperienced players, players that have poor reactions, inappropriate builds etc and what I do frequently is adapt my build to compensate for the weakness (e.g il sometimes sneak more heal into my build) , its quite satisfying when the group wins through. I just see it as a weak part of a team, but its only the overall team that matters.

This isn't restricted to gaming, the ability to compensate for others without drama is critical for business success, particularly in highly technical roles. For example I frequently work with technically weak offshore dev teams with low cognitive ability, and you learn to shape the team to maximise their exposure to work they are good at while slowly teaching them over time.

In our project area we have a large posted on our wall with the words to the effect that you must always assume people are trying the best they can, and never a truer word said if you want a group to work to the best of its current ability. The alternative? play the blame game? 'they are useless!' ultimately this is self defeating and destructive.

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

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:I prefer SPvP to collections and world completion. But tying the Funerary Armor to those specific POF collections and the Funerary Weapons to legendary bounties ensured that I actually spent time doing that content. As a result, getting the funerary stuff for my guardian made me appreciate the zones and the work that went into the bounty system and it made me appreciate the items themselves more. And it got me leading a bunch of legendary bounty trains helping people do the bosses as well. All the funerary stuff has a lot more meaning to me now because getting it required specific things from me than the Bounty Hunter and Warbeast armor sets, which I just passively unlocked all of while I played SPvP.

But that's a content you came to enjoy. Was there never content in the game that you

never

enjoyed? Like I said, I agree with the idea that content can

draw

you to an area, there can be portions that require you to spend a

little

time doing a specific thing, and if you really enjoy it, then great, you can keep doing it. If you really don't enjoy it though, especially if the goal takes months to earn, then they should let you do something else instead.

I probably would have had more fun waiting every week for Priory Explorer Elise and being excited about what recipe she's offering next and wondering when and where's she's going to be found. It diversifies player experience. It gives items tangible meaning and makes them cool. And by making people do a variety of things aside from their number 1 favorite thing it prevents burn out.

But none of what you describe could be compared at all to raiding. You describe minor inconveniences and half-week grinds, when what we're talking about is a multi-month grind of very complex and deliberately annoying content. Apples and oranges.

Plus a lot of times players will avoid things they're unfamiliar with. It took me over a year after release to ever set for in PvP or WvW.

But again, that can be accomplished with a short term goal, it doesn't require a long term one.

Think about how many WvWers got into WvW because if you wanted to craft a legendary weapon you had to go into WvW.

Why is it good for the game for WvW to be a thing, in the abstract? If people don't want to do it, why should they have to? Is it worth spending developer resources on the mode if people only do it because the developers bribe them into it? Wouldn't it just be better if players

didn't

play that mode, and instead those resources were spent on the content they actually

wanted

to play?

Existing WVW players (and indeed all potential players) need long term goals, so Anet added them to wvw to fill the gap. WVW already had a ton of short term goals. Other players got attracted to WVW as a result as the overall content package became more attractive.

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

@STIHL.2489 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Ferelwing.8463 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:I could fling the exact same words, using the exact same logic, back at you.

See, Unlike you, I don't want to deprive you of anything

That's your own conviction. Mine is that you

will

deprive me of something, regardless if you realize this or not.

Oh dear how mean of me.. so tell me.. outside of self serving ego stroking, what would I be depriving you of?

Possibly the opportunity to play raids at all, by starving them of the required playerbase.In any case, more raid releases, as the developers would need to waste time to rebalance all the existing raids for no good reason.

Could make the same argument that they should scrap wvw and pvp because it could make expac and living world faster to complete and ship.

Yes and do you know why they don't? Because it's content marketed for a specific demographic such that that group of people could get interested in GW2.

Please tell me which group of people would get interested to play GW2 because their are easy mode raids?

Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would.

So no, it's NOT about marketing to that group of players. Instanced content however makes it impossible to find out if you would "enjoy" that kind of playstyle. If you can't get in or your group wipes constantly and you waste 10 people's time because you can't figure it out etc (and don't want to sit through and watch 100 videos etc) but would like to just freaking play it... So while it might be fun for some people who feel like it's "fun" to spend hours of time watching a video about how to play then spend however long trying to find a group of people to play it through and then maybe completing the content. Sure, go ahead and tell people again that it's "marketed" for that type of person.

Not everyone knows what is "for them" till they try it and when you have instanced content, well it's obvious that you can't just "try" it.

The point is they introduced raids to pull more people in with the HOT expansion. to market to a specific kind of player.

Honestly i don't really see where you're argument would prove me wrong. Rather it explains quite nicely why you should lock rewards to specific content.

Well beyond the fact that HoT was a major catastrophic failure... I can't see why this was not a brilliant idea.

A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion. A lot of people found reasons to complain about HoT. It doesn't make it a failure. A lot of people always find reasons to complain about everything.

LOL.. what.. did you think that because HoT failed big time they would cease making Living World? Really?

And PoF is nothing like HoT.

? hot was a success both commercially and technically and introduced a ton of content.

No it wasn't, in fact, Colin openly admitted as he left the Studio, that HoT didn't go over nearly as well as they had hoped.

'nearly as well as they had hoped' does not equate to failure. If it was a big time failure they would not have created another expansion along same lines.

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

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Ferelwing.8463 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:I could fling the exact same words, using the exact same logic, back at you.

See, Unlike you, I don't want to deprive you of anything

That's your own conviction. Mine is that you

will

deprive me of something, regardless if you realize this or not.

Oh dear how mean of me.. so tell me.. outside of self serving ego stroking, what would I be depriving you of?

Possibly the opportunity to play raids at all, by starving them of the required playerbase.In any case, more raid releases, as the developers would need to waste time to rebalance all the existing raids for no good reason.

Could make the same argument that they should scrap wvw and pvp because it could make expac and living world faster to complete and ship.

Yes and do you know why they don't? Because it's content marketed for a specific demographic such that that group of people could get interested in GW2.

Please tell me which group of people would get interested to play GW2 because their are easy mode raids?

Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would.

So no, it's NOT about marketing to that group of players. Instanced content however makes it impossible to find out if you would "enjoy" that kind of playstyle. If you can't get in or your group wipes constantly and you waste 10 people's time because you can't figure it out etc (and don't want to sit through and watch 100 videos etc) but would like to just freaking play it... So while it might be fun for some people who feel like it's "fun" to spend hours of time watching a video about how to play then spend however long trying to find a group of people to play it through and then maybe completing the content. Sure, go ahead and tell people again that it's "marketed" for that type of person.

Not everyone knows what is "for them" till they try it and when you have instanced content, well it's obvious that you can't just "try" it.

The point is they introduced raids to pull more people in with the HOT expansion. to market to a specific kind of player.

Honestly i don't really see where you're argument would prove me wrong. Rather it explains quite nicely why you should lock rewards to specific content.

Well beyond the fact that HoT was a major catastrophic failure... I can't see why this was not a brilliant idea.

A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion. A lot of people found reasons to complain about HoT. It doesn't make it a failure. A lot of people always find reasons to complain about everything.

LOL.. what.. did you think that because HoT failed big time they would cease making Living World? Really?

And PoF is nothing like HoT.

? hot was a success both commercially and technically and introduced a ton of content.

[Elitism - Mass Discussion Thread]

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:2 minutes less cleartime is worth every toxicity. I play that content to be as efficient as possible and if my party is bad then I just leave. If party is toxic to me I leave. But It is interesting that you say how fractlas are soooo toxic yet I only met 2 players that were rude to me In fractals and I have benn playing them for 2 years.

Looks like If you know what you are doing then noone is rude to you

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

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

@Tyson.5160 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:And I see no reason why Ohoni's way of thinking should be encouraged. So have we reached an impasse?

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence.

This solution also has many holes. In theory it's fine but, first of all the Raids that provide access to the Legendary Armor are part of Heart of Thorns. If I was Anet I wouldn't add such a high prestigious reward to so old content. Creating a brand new Legendary Armor skin for Heart of Thorns owners is wasted resources and wasted time that could be spent making new skins for the next expansion... Heart of Thorns is done already, no new reward will ever be created specifically for it (unless it's a gem store glider)

Further, what about the Path of Fire Raids? We have one now Hall of Chains, it makes sense to get another Raid to finish the Legendary trinket before the next expansion. What exactly would an easy mode for Hall of Chains provide? Obviously you can't expect players to have both expansions to get Legendary armor, for marketing reasons, so Hall of Chains (and the next Raid) need something else.

The way I see it, if modes are to be added to the Raid, is to make sure the next expansion's Raids are created from scratch to support tiers, something the current Raids were never designed for, and add a new Legendary Armor skin to the "normal" version there. Then add another Legendary item, amulet, accessory, back item, to the Hard version. That way you make sure both modes get players, there is no conflict of interest, since both modes offer different "end" rewards. And by making the Raid from the start tier-friendly you skip the problem of adding code later, which has the tendency of breaking things completely.

So add more Legendary items to raiding? Yeah no thanks, I prefer they spread the trinkets and so forth among the other game modes too.

really, i think anyone who would do the instance would love legendary items. Visualise that you wanted to do the instances , suddenly trinkets that get sharded straight away these days are not so attractive right, but then again you dont really think this is an attractive reward do you.

A new legendary skin for normal mode and a bunch of raiding trinkets for hard mode was what I was referring to.

ah apologies misunderstood, that makes sense and seems reasonable :)

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

@Tyson.5160 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:And I see no reason why Ohoni's way of thinking should be encouraged. So have we reached an impasse?

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence.

This solution also has many holes. In theory it's fine but, first of all the Raids that provide access to the Legendary Armor are part of Heart of Thorns. If I was Anet I wouldn't add such a high prestigious reward to so old content. Creating a brand new Legendary Armor skin for Heart of Thorns owners is wasted resources and wasted time that could be spent making new skins for the next expansion... Heart of Thorns is done already, no new reward will ever be created specifically for it (unless it's a gem store glider)

Further, what about the Path of Fire Raids? We have one now Hall of Chains, it makes sense to get another Raid to finish the Legendary trinket before the next expansion. What exactly would an easy mode for Hall of Chains provide? Obviously you can't expect players to have both expansions to get Legendary armor, for marketing reasons, so Hall of Chains (and the next Raid) need something else.

The way I see it, if modes are to be added to the Raid, is to make sure the next expansion's Raids are created from scratch to support tiers, something the current Raids were never designed for, and add a new Legendary Armor skin to the "normal" version there. Then add another Legendary item, amulet, accessory, back item, to the Hard version. That way you make sure both modes get players, there is no conflict of interest, since both modes offer different "end" rewards. And by making the Raid from the start tier-friendly you skip the problem of adding code later, which has the tendency of breaking things completely.

So add more Legendary items to raiding? Yeah no thanks, I prefer they spread the trinkets and so forth among the other game modes too.

really, i think anyone who would do the instance would love legendary items. Visualise that you wanted to do the instances , suddenly trinkets that get sharded straight away these days are not so attractive right, but then again you dont really think this is an attractive reward do you.

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

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:And I see no reason why Ohoni's way of thinking should be encouraged. So have we reached an impasse?

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence.

This solution also has many holes. In theory it's fine but, first of all the Raids that provide access to the Legendary Armor are part of Heart of Thorns. If I was Anet I wouldn't add such a high prestigious reward to so old content. Creating a brand new Legendary Armor skin for Heart of Thorns owners is wasted resources and wasted time that could be spent making new skins for the next expansion... Heart of Thorns is done already, no new reward will ever be created specifically for it (unless it's a gem store glider)

Further, what about the Path of Fire Raids? We have one now Hall of Chains, it makes sense to get another Raid to finish the Legendary trinket before the next expansion. What exactly would an easy mode for Hall of Chains provide? Obviously you can't expect players to have both expansions to get Legendary armor, for marketing reasons, so Hall of Chains (and the next Raid) need something else.

The way I see it, if modes are to be added to the Raid, is to make sure the next expansion's Raids are created from scratch to support tiers, something the current Raids were never designed for, and add a new Legendary Armor skin to the "normal" version there. Then add another Legendary item, amulet, accessory, back item, to the Hard version. That way you make sure both modes get players, there is no conflict of interest, since both modes offer different "end" rewards. And by making the Raid from the start tier-friendly you skip the problem of adding code later, which has the tendency of breaking things completely.

its always possible to look for issues where you are not in solution mode though. At a basic 'minimum viable product' (for those that understand that term) Create a copy of the instance, reduce dmg across the board by x% and create a copy of legendary from wvw or pvp and tweak the skins to give rewards. Job done for phase 1.

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

@Feanor.2358 said:And I see no reason why Ohoni's way of thinking should be encouraged. So have we reached an impasse?

the compromise seems obvious to me, no envoy gear for easy mode, but a different legendary skin, that takes proportionally longer the fram than existing raids, along line of wvw and pvp. I think Ohni is wrong, both on principle and on precedence.

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

lol i need to look at this envoy armor again (i thought it was a bit ugly tbh), people are SO VERY VERY DESPERATE to keep it all for themselves/get it through some other content, it must be a glorious gamechanger!

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

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:can you not wrap up this thread by simply saying:

• Existing raids and envoy gear should be unique as per other content types in game.
• Lots of people miss out on 10 man instances because they don't like the current tuning of raid, therefore it would be nice if we also had lower tuned mode raids that they (and everyone else) can enjoy. This raid would offer legendary gear that takes as long as it takes to get legendary in say wvw. This should not be Envoy gear.

When you look at this without the selfish hat on, everyone wins. Raids have greater take-up, meaning potential more investment by Anet to build more raids for all and everyone gets access to 10 man content at a tuning level that suits. As a bonus, easier mode raids also give a natural training ground for people who will eventually migrate up to more difficult tuned instances.

While I agree it's a step forward, it doesn't offer much to players who

never

want to "advance" to the harder difficulty version, and that you're still leaving out of the Envoy armor. I'm fine with Envoy armor remaining exclusive to "raids," so long as that term is inclusive of the easy mode, just as The Ascension can be earned in ranked PvP, without being exclusive to the higher rank tiers of it.

I get that existing raiders

want

to maintain exclusive access to that loot, their own little walled off garden, I just disagree that they're

entitled

to it.

People who don't want to advance, get some legendary armor, and more importantly access to 10 man they enjoy. As for Envoy, it has to be exclusive to 'hard' mode only to protect the investment existing raiders made (lets be fair here). Also the street goes both ways, if easy mode raids want legendary, then that should be unique too.

I also think it would speed up existing raid development ultimately, as the cost/benefit improves and investment in raids will give better bang for the back for us/ Anet.

2 legendary armors in raids does not make sense at all.

Easy mode would be a lower tier from raids, so the most natural thing is that it doesn't give access to legendary armor. In my opinion, it would make perfect sense for easy mode to give the pre.

so lets keep the fairness hat on. wvw, spvp, raiding all have legendary. This can be the same.

sPvP has something like tiers -unranked and ranked - only ranked gives legendary armor.WvW does not have tiers.If easy mode exists raids would have tiers, why do they have to give 2 different legendary armors? If I keep your "fairness" hat on, and apply the model of sPvP, easy mode raids should not have anything related to a legendary armor. Not even the pre.

If you cant empathise there's not much that's going to persuade you is there., and you are missing the point of my initial post. The point is existing raids get something desirable, and easy mode raiders get something too. The people that gain from these raids are people just like you incidently, not 2nd class citizens because they cant commit to the existing style of raiding. Read the post from your fellow raiders above, they can appreciate and understand compromise.

You're switching arguments. This has nothing to do with claiming that " wvw, spvp, raiding all have legendary. This can be the same".

Nope easy mode players wouldn't be 2nd class citizens, of course not. Of course they should get something. I'm not saying that, you're assuming things.

The only thing I'm saying is that easy mode shouldn't give a legendary armor. I even said that it could give the pre, and that's more than what other tiered game modes give right now. Let's be fair, it isn't normal that both easy mode and normal mode give a legendary armor. Easy mode could give ascended drops, the pre, idk, a lot of things, but not the legen.

No the 'only' thing you are saying is that people who raid easy mode shouldn't get the rewards that are given to wvw, spvp and raids purely because you don't want them to get them. Very odd considering quite obviously pve players would love this. You basically ignored the points above and went back to infer the old argument that PVE players either change their tastes and/or their real life commitments ( or is it 'not be lazy') or f*ck em they can make do with non legendary rewards. very fair to be sure and altruistic, especially with your 'give ascended drops' knowing fine well ascended is no longer a long term goal and are trivial to obtain.

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

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:can you not wrap up this thread by simply saying:

• Existing raids and envoy gear should be unique as per other content types in game.
• Lots of people miss out on 10 man instances because they don't like the current tuning of raid, therefore it would be nice if we also had lower tuned mode raids that they (and everyone else) can enjoy. This raid would offer legendary gear that takes as long as it takes to get legendary in say wvw. This should not be Envoy gear.

When you look at this without the selfish hat on, everyone wins. Raids have greater take-up, meaning potential more investment by Anet to build more raids for all and everyone gets access to 10 man content at a tuning level that suits. As a bonus, easier mode raids also give a natural training ground for people who will eventually migrate up to more difficult tuned instances.

While I agree it's a step forward, it doesn't offer much to players who

never

want to "advance" to the harder difficulty version, and that you're still leaving out of the Envoy armor. I'm fine with Envoy armor remaining exclusive to "raids," so long as that term is inclusive of the easy mode, just as The Ascension can be earned in ranked PvP, without being exclusive to the higher rank tiers of it.

I get that existing raiders

want

to maintain exclusive access to that loot, their own little walled off garden, I just disagree that they're

entitled

to it.

People who don't want to advance, get some legendary armor, and more importantly access to 10 man they enjoy. As for Envoy, it has to be exclusive to 'hard' mode only to protect the investment existing raiders made (lets be fair here). Also the street goes both ways, if easy mode raids want legendary, then that should be unique too.

I also think it would speed up existing raid development ultimately, as the cost/benefit improves and investment in raids will give better bang for the back for us/ Anet.

2 legendary armors in raids does not make sense at all.

Easy mode would be a lower tier from raids, so the most natural thing is that it doesn't give access to legendary armor. In my opinion, it would make perfect sense for easy mode to give the pre.

so lets keep the fairness hat on. wvw, spvp, raiding all have legendary. This can be the same.

sPvP has something like tiers -unranked and ranked - only ranked gives legendary armor.WvW does not have tiers.If easy mode exists raids would have tiers, why do they have to give 2 different legendary armors? If I keep your "fairness" hat on, and apply the model of sPvP, easy mode raids should not have anything related to a legendary armor. Not even the pre.

If you cant empathise there's not much that's going to persuade you is there., and you are missing the point of my initial post. The point is existing raids get something desirable, and easy mode raiders get something too. The people that gain from these raids are people just like you incidently, not 2nd class citizens because they cant commit to the existing style of raiding. Read the post from your fellow raiders above, they can appreciate and understand compromise.

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

@nia.4725 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:can you not wrap up this thread by simply saying:

• Existing raids and envoy gear should be unique as per other content types in game.
• Lots of people miss out on 10 man instances because they don't like the current tuning of raid, therefore it would be nice if we also had lower tuned mode raids that they (and everyone else) can enjoy. This raid would offer legendary gear that takes as long as it takes to get legendary in say wvw. This should not be Envoy gear.

When you look at this without the selfish hat on, everyone wins. Raids have greater take-up, meaning potential more investment by Anet to build more raids for all and everyone gets access to 10 man content at a tuning level that suits. As a bonus, easier mode raids also give a natural training ground for people who will eventually migrate up to more difficult tuned instances.

While I agree it's a step forward, it doesn't offer much to players who

never

want to "advance" to the harder difficulty version, and that you're still leaving out of the Envoy armor. I'm fine with Envoy armor remaining exclusive to "raids," so long as that term is inclusive of the easy mode, just as The Ascension can be earned in ranked PvP, without being exclusive to the higher rank tiers of it.

I get that existing raiders

want

to maintain exclusive access to that loot, their own little walled off garden, I just disagree that they're

entitled

to it.

People who don't want to advance, get some legendary armor, and more importantly access to 10 man they enjoy. As for Envoy, it has to be exclusive to 'hard' mode only to protect the investment existing raiders made (lets be fair here). Also the street goes both ways, if easy mode raids want legendary, then that should be unique too.

I also think it would speed up existing raid development ultimately, as the cost/benefit improves and investment in raids will give better bang for the back for us/ Anet.

2 legendary armors in raids does not make sense at all.

Easy mode would be a lower tier from raids, so the most natural thing is that it doesn't give access to legendary armor. In my opinion, it would make perfect sense for easy mode to give the pre.

so lets keep the fairness hat on. wvw, spvp, raiding all have legendary. This can be the same.

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

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"vesica tempestas.1563" said:can you not wrap up this thread by simply saying:

• Existing raids and envoy gear should be unique as per other content types in game.
• Lots of people miss out on 10 man instances because they don't like the current tuning of raid, therefore it would be nice if we also had lower tuned mode raids that they (and everyone else) can enjoy. This raid would offer legendary gear that takes as long as it takes to get legendary in say wvw. This should not be Envoy gear.

When you look at this without the selfish hat on, everyone wins. Raids have greater take-up, meaning potential more investment by Anet to build more raids for all and everyone gets access to 10 man content at a tuning level that suits. As a bonus, easier mode raids also give a natural training ground for people who will eventually migrate up to more difficult tuned instances.

While I agree it's a step forward, it doesn't offer much to players who

never

want to "advance" to the harder difficulty version, and that you're still leaving out of the Envoy armor. I'm fine with Envoy armor remaining exclusive to "raids," so long as that term is inclusive of the easy mode, just as The Ascension can be earned in ranked PvP, without being exclusive to the higher rank tiers of it.

I get that existing raiders

want

to maintain exclusive access to that loot, their own little walled off garden, I just disagree that they're

entitled

to it.

People who don't want to advance, get some legendary armor, and more importantly access to 10 man they enjoy. As for Envoy, it has to be exclusive to 'hard' mode only to protect the investment existing raiders made (lets be fair here). Also the street goes both ways, if easy mode raids want legendary, then that should be unique too.

I also think it would speed up existing raid development ultimately, as the cost/benefit improves and investment in raids will give better bang for the back for us/ Anet.

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

can you not wrap up this thread by simply saying:

• Existing raids and envoy gear should be unique as per other content types in game.
• Lots of people miss out on 10 man instances because they don't like the current tuning of raid, therefore it would be nice if we also had lower tuned mode raids that they (and everyone else) can enjoy. This raid would offer legendary gear that takes as long as it takes to get legendary in say wvw. This should not be Envoy gear.

When you look at this without the selfish hat on, everyone wins. Raids have greater take-up, meaning potential more investment by Anet to build more raids for all and everyone gets access to 10 man content at a tuning level that suits. As a bonus, easier mode raids also give a natural training ground for people who will eventually migrate up to more difficult tuned instances.

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

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Blaeys.3102 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Blaeys.3102 said:I had this in another thread, but it makes more sense to state it here -

I know some people do not want to accept it, but the reason WoW is seen as the posterchild for how to make raiding work in an MMO is because the developers there adapted the game mode throughout the years and ended up with something that fits with the rest of the game. By including multiple difficulty tiers (including and LFG and flex raid tier), they were able to do things that a game like GW2 cannot, most notably incorporating strong story and lore focused content into raids. Since they do not have to worry about the accessibility factor, raids could become a deeply integrated part of the WoW experience.

WoW is seen as the pinnacle of raiding content because a decade ago it released iconic difficult raid after iconic that people still talk about. People still talk about Ragnaros, C'thun, Kael'thas, Illidan and Arthas. No one has ever or will ever be waxing poetic about Deathwing, Ragnaros 2.0, Garrosh, or Argus the Unmaker a decade from now.

All of the bosses you mention here are now 100-1000 times easier than anything in GW2 because of the gear and level treadmills - game features that created their own sort of difficultly levels (within months of the content being released). Essentially, the content was eventually open and easily accessible to players of all skill levels through that design.

Now, gear treadmills do not exist (or belong) in GW2, so that isn't an option. The correct path to take here is to implement actual difficulty tiers - to achieve that same level of accessibility those iconic raid bosses in WoW had.

The way classic WoW worked didn't give the game an organic difficulty curve. Ragnaros was hard, and you were expected to have your raid mostly geared out from the previous bosses in Molten Core to stand a chance against him. The only thing trivializing him was when your raid started getting geared out in tier 2 equipment from the next harder raid Black Wing Lair. It wasn't open and accessible to players of all skill levels through that design. It made it so that dedicated raid teams could trivialize him.

That doesn't even get into the fact that all those classic bosses and raids had long difficult attunement chains to even get into the dungeon. Classes WoW raids were far less open and accessible than GW2's. It wasn't until cataclysm where they made normal mode a complete joke where everyone was expected to do them. And suprise, that happens to line up with the point and time when people largely stop actually giving a kitten about WoW raids. WoW's population dropped from a peak of 12 Million in WotLK and plummeted down to a low of about 1 million active players in Draenor. And easy mode raids were a huge part of it. It's extremely healthy to have content that players haven't done but want to. It's extremely healthy to have things in the game that players want but don't have. It's more important to have those things, than to have all the content all dried up and people sitting around waiting for the next patch to drop which is where WoW has been post WotLK.

That's the situation GW2 was in during LWS2. The patch would drop. Everyone would blitz through the story that provided zero challenge in an hour and were waiting around for weeks for the next patch bored and miserable because all the content was immediately exhausted.

Your post is just nonsense. Not only were raid bosses (Especially BC+WotLK era) about as hard as GW2's, they were far less accessible in every sense of the word.

he was obviously not talking about vanilla.

He mentioned "iconic" wow bosses. Nothing post WotLK is iconic.

read again.

'adapted the game mode throughout the years and ended up with something that fits with the rest of the game. By including multiple difficulty tiers '

Clearly you need an easy mode for reading comprehension because the specific post is about how WoW's gear treadmill gave it an organic easy and hard mode.

The sentence you're quoting isn't even in the specific post I'm responding to and not relevant to the topic at hand. It's from a completely different post.

you do know about timewalking dont you?

Dude. Like slow down and follow the conversational exchange before posting.

The actual discussion plays out like this.

Blaeys: WoW is seen as the gold standard of raids and it has easy mode. GW2 should have easy mode too.Me: WoW is seen as the gold standard because a decade ago it released iconic raid after iconic raid that were iconic in large part because of their difficulty.Blaeys: Those bosses had an organic built in difficulty curve because of how gear works in that game.Me: That's not how the gear treadmill works.

You: TIMEWALKING

It's also really funny how everyone here keeps bringing up WoW's raids when the number of people playing on the most popular private servers dedicated to faithfully recreating the vanilla WoW experience dwarfs the current number for the live game. Even after all the accessiblity and easy mode raids, far more people are going way out of their way to play the inaccessible version. I'm guessing you slept through all the Nostalrius controversy last year when millions of current and ex-WoW players were begging Blizzard to release legitimate legacy Vanilla WoW servers. I'm also guessing you're the type of person who is always arguing against official Blizzard operated legacy servers.

I play on a vanilla WOTLK server. lets assume he was not talking about vanilla bosses through timewalking. I was also raiding in vanilla, and the gear treadmill did indeed mean that MC and Tier 2 eventually became an AOE fest as did AQ40 at the end. Remember mc 40 pugs?