Blaeys.3102

The topic arises so often because newer players or even long standing players curious about raids see this as a no-brainer - a common sense step that would only make the game better, even for the harder-core raiders. Honestly, it might be worth sticky-ing this thread. The topic isn't going away and, even if there is a period of quiet on the subject, it will eventually resurface for the reason I mention above.

It is good to see this topic resurface periodically on its own, as many of us predicted it would. I still contend that the way raids are currently implemented does not fit with the rest of the game, potentially fragments the story experience, encourages toxicity among players and is unsustainable long term. Outside of a tiered difficulty system, I believe the only way they can maintain consistent long-term interest will be to use a lopsided reward system that creates a severe have/have not situation between raiders and non raiders - something many players would find disheartening. That is a dangerous road to go down and would fly in the face of the reasons many picked this game over other MMOs. I still hold out hope that Anet management steps in and realizes this sooner rather than later - but I do think that easy modes/tiered difficulties will have to happen. It is just a matter of time.

It's good to see that, even here on the raiding subforum, there is noticeably greater desire for multiple difficulty modes in raiding - and that the conversation continues as new people realize the potential fun it could offer to the game. As I've said many times, Anet will only be able to ignore this for so long before realizing the mistakes they made with this game mode. The current model is unsustainable long term, doesn't fit with the rest of the game and, I believe, is actively detrimental to community morale in many situations.

Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions. Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that? :astonished: We have just entered the early stages of development and this will take some time to complete. I was just stating that we have already recognized the need for extra time to organize when the changes eventually go live.So is the implementation a foregone conclusion? There are a lot of people who think this is a very bad direction to go. You need to take that into account.

They could simply join those alliances while they can if they cared. But since they're casual, seems like, by definition, they don't care as much. And I suppose heaven forbid hardcore be matched up against hardcore and casual be matched up against casual, that might make for more competitive matches, and I guess you can't have that in a competitive gamemode, right? And woe is me, I won't get to carry all the casual leeches, I'll miss them one-pushing in fights and contributing nothing to the group. But I suppose the casuals are being oppressed into being have-nots by the more hardcore players too, right? You're assuming there will be room in those alliances for more casual players, when we all know that is unlikely to be the case. This isn't about carrying anyone. The current system allows for a variety of experiences throughout the week - shifting between different groups (of friends) that you enjoy playing with. That is something many experience in the current system that will not be there if they make this change. It is about balancing friendships, casual play and hardcore competitiveness. Again, if the system had been implemented day 1, it would have worked well. But, people have been working within these communities for five years now, bringing the nuance and diversity of playstyles together in ways that simply will not be possible with the proposed changes. It would be extremely irresponsible of Anet to push these changes live without taking into account the damage they will do along with any potential improvements. I know a lot of people that will be affected by this change in ways that will, most likely, push them out of wvw completely (me probably being one of them).

While this will likely make the game mode more competitive and give hardcore players a more balanced experience, I think it will also likely push your more casual WvWers out completely. I know dozens of players that enjoy 1-2 days a week in WvW alongside their more hardcore friends. With limited space in alliances, I don't see them making the room for those more casual players - creating a have/have nots dynamic in the game mode. So, while it may seem like a good thing for some, it may be the end of the game mode for many others. It's also worth noting that those same casual players are unlikely to be as active in this subforum as the more hardcore WvWers. Anet really needs a better way to get their feedback on this issue.

If they had implemented this on day one, I could see it working. But, after five years, many people have developed multiple ties to different communities on their server. It isn't uncommon for someone to WvW with one guild on Monday and one with a different playstyle on Tuesday. Under the proposed system, that will be pretty much gone for all practical purposes. Because of alliance limits, most harder core wvw guilds will be very picky about who is (and who isn't) in their alliance. The people running the alliance will have no choice but to look for the most competitive guilds to group with - regardless of how tight their current communities are. The players that join them for a night or two - and then run with more casual groups later in the week (and there are a lot more of these kinds of wvwers than you might think) - will now be forced to either make a larger commitment to WvW or risk missing out entirely. In the past five years, servers have banded together. They have bought expensive teamspeak servers and websites. They have set up fun little theme nights for less hardcore players. They have built ties based around things other than how good a player someone is. The proposed alliance system will harm that. Again, if it had been like this from day one, it wouldn't be an issue. But asking this of the community five years in makes me think that Anet has grown out of touch with the real in-game communities (which aren't really represented here on the wvw forums, btw).

If you look at guilds as solid single entities, your points work. But that isn't the case. There are players out there that enjoy playing with different groups of friends throughout the week. Many bounce between harder-core full time wvw groups and their smaller groups based around friendships or spillovers from PVE activities. This will be impossible to do under the new system, unless those guilds are all in the same alliance (which is highly unlikely if any of them are more casual than the others - or if the alliance cap is restrictive). So, the system will force guilds to ally not based on friendships, but rather on perceived skill levels - which is definitely worth labeling as elitism. And getting away from elitism is why many shifted from other MMOs to GW2 in the first place. It baffles that Anet wants to mess around with that. The proposed system only works if everyone is either in a full time wvw guild or in a casual wvw guild. When you have crossover between the two (and you definitely have a lot of that), then the system falls apart - and makes the decisions you make about who to wvw with affect real tangible friendships.

There are potential solutions that would help balance populations without decimating the current server communities in the game. I recall a video that made the rounds several years ago that discussed implementing more than 3 borderlands maps in a given match, allowing for a single regional wvw match - where all of the servers are essentially grouped (and periodically regrouped) into three large teams - and then enough borderlands maps are generated to accommodate for all of them in the given time period. While still not a perfect solution, it has to be better than what they are proposing here, which essentially invalidates the communities built in the last five years. Of course, this would require more work from Anet, but that is better than putting this onto players (and the inevitable elitism that comes with that as casual guilds jockey for semi-decent wvw experiences). I tried to find the video but cannot - I remember it being extremely well done. If someone remembers it (or the person who created it sees this), it would be worth linking.

I see several potential problems with this proposed system. First, there are many guilds, like mine, that characterize themselves as PVX, meaning they are made up of players who enjoy the different aspects of the game (open world, raids, wvw, etc) together. Several members fill in with WvW through other guilds, but they still enjoy our 1-2 nights as a guild in WvW. What you are proposing will essentially kill this dynamic. Second, even servers that aren't necessarily super competitive in WvW still have fun together - and have dedicated literally years and thousands of dollars (outside of GW2) to enrich those communities. As an example, our server members maintain a high count teamspeak server and website. These communities mean a lot to us and we do not want to see that investment invalidated, even if the result is better balance (we would rather retain our community). Third, this system will likely encourage even greater elitism in the game. I worry that the guilds we run with now will end up hitting the alliance "cap" and more casual guilds like mine will be placed in the untenable position of "holding them back" in order to be a part of these limited number community. While some may find this to make the game mode more competitive, I worry that many more will find it creating a more toxic WvW community. That isn't a direction GW2, which has always leaned toward a more casual environment and playerbase, should be going in. You risk alienating more casual players - segmenting them into a sort of sub-class in the community that no one wants to play with or be associated with. I strongly urge you to consider these points - and possibly implement some kind of in game opinion collection. I know that tonight, in our guild run in teamspeak, there is not a single player who thinks this is a good idea. I further hope this isn't a foregone conclusion. The potential damage to in game communities - that many of us care deeply for - isn't worth any potential benefits this system might bring.

The only realistic reason I could ever see for GW3 would be to improve the game engine - and I don't see that as a legitimate reason for shifting gears right now. The shift from GW1 and GW2 made sense because GW1 was never actually an MMO. It was a coop game with a public in game lobby. GW2 is a fully fleshed out (and extremely well done) MMO. Not sure where you would go with a GW3.

If there is any group or individuals that could be assembled regarding the topic of guilds and guild related activities/support, that would get my vote. Outside of that, as others have said, the balance team should probably be near the top of the must do list.

Here's a prediction - now that a mod has moved the thread from the general subforum to the raid subforum, we will see the opinion skew heavily toward the "raids should only be hardcore" point of view in the poll. It's something we've seen before. Limiting the audience will result in very different results. Sorry to see that happen. Hopefully, any Anet devs trying to read into any results understands that and actually sees the (admittedly small scale) results prior to the thread move.

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. And it worked (despite the complaints from elitists claiming lower tiers somehow "ruined" raids). That game offers some of the (if not the) best raiding experiences in the industry - and has done so for almost a decade now. Unfortunately (I believe), Anet wants raids to be something different in this game. In a game that has always been about accessibility and community (where they even bragged about being the "friendliest" MMO), they have injected semi-exclusionary content. They cannot tie that content strongly to the rest of the story and, by their own admission, want it to be almost exclusively for a small percentage of players. Given that, they have made the conscious decision to limit the size of the raid development team to the point where new raids will probably come 2-3 times a year, at the fastest. So, what we end up with is content that feels disconnected from the rest of the game, that is only enjoyed by a small percentage of players, that people "master" within a few weeks (month at the longest), and that comes out at a snail's pace (unfortunately, rightfully so, given the size of the team and target audience).That is not a sustainable model for success. If you doubt that, think about what raids would look like if the rest of the game weren't here. No one - not even hardcore raiders - would think that was enough - or interesting enough - to warrant their attention. They are relegated to ancillary content at best. And, when that ancillary content cannot have strong story ties to the rest of the game and is partially walled off due to the math of raiding (refuse to call them actually difficult), it will eventually begin to feel more and more out of place. Despite the reluctance from the developers and worries from hardercore raiders, the mode needs difficulty tiers. It needs them to justify stronger story ties to the GW2 narrative and to justify more development resources from Anet. Until that happens, we are stuck with how raids are now, a model that I believe is unsustainable longterm.

The price per skin is fine imo. The RNG element is extremely shady and non-Anet (at least the Anet that first created this game). That is where they go way too far. Basically, this purchase model requires people to potentially buy multiple skins they do not want in order to get the one they do want. That crosses a line that I never expected Anet to cross. Sell one clear item for one clear price and stop resorting to shady sales tactics that take advantage of consumer trust and encourage addictive buying behaviors. It really isn't more complicated than that.

There is a way they could accomplish this that would ensure some level of map coordination, build in a minimal reward and make the maps more alive all at the same time. Right now, most open world bosses and event chains are designed for pugs - meaning they do not require any coordination whatsoever to complete. If they added these bosses and events in as guild missions - and allowed guilds to trigger them at times other than their natural occurrence (similar to how the guild event flag works now), they could implement special challenge versions of the fight that do require varying levels of coordination. By tying them to guild activities, they would guarantee two things - that someone is actually "leading" the event and that at least a core group will be coordinating with one another. The slight reward would be guild influence and commendations (same as it is for missions now - with some possible new guild skins to help drive it forward. This would further benefit those not in guilds - or pugs on a given map - by giving them access to fights and experiences that normally wouldn't be taking place - and by giving them access to the semi organization that comes with having a guild commander and core group on a map. I know that the guild content team no longer exists at Anet, but I still think this would be a worthy endeavor that would benefit everyone in the game - while enabling the development of more challenging open world content (that assumes a higher level of coordination is present).

I think people are overstating how easy the bounties are. I still see many people struggling with them - even in large groups. The only minor problem I see with bounties is that some of the random abilities they can acquire are overtuned and/or boring - specifically healing mist that only makes the fight much longer with no real way to counter. Also, while not necessarily a complaint about bounties - their need to be placeable bounty boards for guild halls tied to new guild missions. It amazes me that this obvious mechanic was not the first thing the devs thought of.

As an individual player, it is fun and provides a lot to do - story was engaging; specs are fun; maps are beautiful and fun to play on. But shouldn't there be some new guild missions after 4.5 years - new bounty system is screaming for a guild version (bounty boards in guild hall, maybe). Guilds got a new hall and a handful of new decorations. Seems kinda thin.

For me, it really is about support for guilds in the form of missions and other ways we they can deepen and improve upon guild focused systems. No new guild missions in the past 4.5 years is a real issue for me. They are the one big thing I will be looking for most between now and the next expansion.

Interestingly enough, it does show preview screens of embedded videos (example in post here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/469/four-and-a-half-years-since-the-last-new-guild-mission#latest) Technology is weird.