I feel excluded from EoD because Soo Won meta event is too hard

[Veprovina.4876]

13 minutes ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

There always was one or two squads asking for some form of KP in the first week of EoD, but those squads are gone.
The strictest squads nowadays are the ones asking for 10-10 Quickness and Alac.

I did see squads that require quickness and alacrity. That's not as bad as killproof though. That's more Anet's fault for making those mandatory...

[Bobzitto.8571]

3 minutes ago, Veprovina.4876 said:

I did see squads that require quickness and alacrity. That's not as bad as killproof though. That's more Anet's fault for making those mandatory...

Rather, I think what we are seeing is a shift as these kinds of builds cement themselves alongside DPS builds as a core of the game. It's similar to other games asking for, say, healers and tanks. They've always been there so for them that's normal, but as new specs open up more providers of quickness and alacrity, the game gets to a point where it's comfortable to design content requiring them. Since we're the vanguard to this kind of design, it's kind of new and strange to us. 

[Arewn.2368]

The game has a vast number of easy map metas and open world bosses.

The hard ones are few and far between.

 

Every time a hard meta comes out, eager communities full of people form around them and love the content. The turtle is now available outside of meta completion, you dont need to take the meta itself away from these communities. 

[Veprovina.4876]

2 minutes ago, Bobzitto.8571 said:

Rather, I think what we are seeing is a shift as these kinds of builds cement themselves alongside DPS builds as a core of the game. It's similar to other games asking for, say, healers and tanks. They've always been there so for them that's normal, but as new specs open up more providers of quickness and alacrity, the game gets to a point where it's comfortable to design content requiring them. Since we're the vanguard to this kind of design, it's kind of new and strange to us. 

But no content was really designed with quickness and alacrity in mind. No content even requires it, not even raids, and definitely not Dragon's end. They just help so much that everyone just brings one or both along.

It's just that, everything in this game can be dealt with with more DPS. You can skip mechanics with DPS. Quickness and alacrity mean more DPS. So naturally people will require those.

I think it shows a failed design rather than anything.

Cause healing and tanking are 2 distinct roles while quickness and alacrity are still DPS roles. 

 

I think the problem is that they gave everyone quickness and alacrity and made them so good that it's dumb not to take such builds. Alacrity should have never left Chronomancer, and should have never been so strong in the first place. Rather than giving it to everyone else except chronomancer, they should have redesigned what it does, or made it more selfish.

Quickness should have never become permanent as well. Those two should have been support effects that you take if you happen to have them.

 

But, even if quickness and alac were not permanent, the nature of what they are will always make them better than not taking them.

So in the end - /shrug. It is what it is. 

[Erise.5614]

12 minutes ago, Arewn.2368 said:

The game has a vast number of easy map metas and open world bosses.

The hard ones are few and far between.

 

Every time a hard meta comes out, eager communities full of people form around them and love the content. The turtle is now available outside of meta completion, you dont need to take the meta itself away from these communities. 

True if it's just spawning alongside the real map meta. 

Not true if it's such front and center content intended to be played for a long time by large parts of the community and everyone who starts playing EoD. These communities are always very tightly knit and three maybe four digit players.

Reserving an entire expansion map pretty much exclusively for such a limited audience is not good. The map would need other stuff going on or would have to be a side story rather than the grand finale to the first decade of GW2. 

I do hope there is more content for that part of the community in the future. Just this one is currently ill suited. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Erise.5614

[The Boz.2038]

7 minutes ago, Veprovina.4876 said:

Alacrity should have never left Chronomancer, and should have never been so strong in the first place. Rather than giving it to everyone else except chronomancer, they should have redesigned what it does, or made it more selfish.

What's the difference between "I have permanent selfish alacrity" and "I naturally have lower cooldowns"? What, more button press, more strippable in PvP?

[Aridon.8362]

I havent done anything EoD yet, but if you win on a game all the time it's not fun anyway.

[Arewn.2368]

1 minute ago, Erise.5614 said:

True if it's just spawning alongside the real map meta. 

Not true if it's such front and center content intended to be played for a long time by large parts of the community and everyone who starts playing EoD. 

The fact that it is a very neglected area of content does not mean it's not worth developing. WvW and PVP have been heavily neglected over the years and the portion of the player base doing them has shrunk proportionately. Does that mean they shouldn't do any more development for that content? No one out there would want it if available?

I think it's obvious a lot of people could enjoy this content for a long time.

It's an MMO, it should cater to many crowds. And challenging content has a part in that. Not just sequestered away in raids or HM strikes.

 

[Wielder Of Magic.3950]

The meta is far from 'too hard', but you have to be willing to invest a little bit more than just showing up as another 'warm body'. Many people refuse to do anything more. I have talked about my experiences before so I will copy+paste a part of a comment I made in the past:

 

Problem with Dragon's End is not that it asks people's builds to tick all possible boxes when it comes to 'good/efficient', the problem is that so many people do not just fail to tick SOME boxes, but somehow actually tick NONE.

People did the math, and for Dragon's End to succeed you need an average squad DPS of 7k.
That is not extremely high you'd say.
But, in reality, you have to deal with people who are a mix or even tick all of the following:

1. They do not run exotic/ascended gear, and even if they do it is a mis-mash of stats, sigils and runes, rarely is it a DPS oriented set.
2. traits are all over the place.
3. they use some weird weapon combination, like some power traits on warrior, but with cleric stats sword/sword.
4. They do not use food or utilities, not even if the squad puts it out.
5. They will not CC on their own or won't  grab an EMP from the Legion Station.
6. They will show up without 10 stacks of Dragon's End Contributor, meaning another 20% loss of damage (at 10 stacks the dmg bonus becomes 20%).
7. They will not use a Jade offensive buff, another 150 power/condi dmg lost.
8. They won't dodge.
9. They won't respawn but lay dead and say 'rezzzzzz'.
10. They will not listen to the commander, stuff like correct splitting or attacking tails/thornhearts/take shelter behind crystals.

Now if you don't tick all of the above boxes as a casual that's fine, and nobody will probably ask that of you. The problem is that so many people tick NONE of these boxes and still expect a win.

It results in people managing to do < 3k DPS who aren't helping or contributing, and it sucks when you see a few enthousiasts do more damage than the bottom 20-30 people combined.

At the very least people should make an effort.

 

And there simply is a large group of people in this game who refuse to do anything that asks more of them than randomly showing up. The meta should not have to be brought down to the level of the average player, the player should improve until they are on the level of the meta. And what it asks is the bare minimum. If asking even the bare minimum is already too much....

If you feel "excluded" because of a completely optional meta... get better and play with people with a similar mindset. Or don't, but do not expect to complete it anytime soon in that case.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Wielder Of Magic.3950

[Cuks.8241]

35 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

I mean. Yes. That's the problem. Open world builds aren't optimized for DPS.
What kind of average pugs do you talk about? And I'd be thrilled to see data suggesting otherwise!

All the people claiming success with low DPS are like "but this was only 5k average throughout the entire encounter!" while having an average DPS of 16k during burn phases (just to reference that HS commander from yesterday posting their full minion necro run). 

I'd really like to see a run with 6k average burn succeed.

Edit: The meta failed during the 3 split phase. So about ~5 minutes off. 

So why do you think you failed? Was the main reason pure DPS check or fail to comply to mechanics which basically results in downs and consequently dps downtime or tail up to long and consequently low dps on buffed boss... Based on the numbers you posted its safe to assume people were dying

I'm pretty sure the answer in these is almost always fail to execute mechanics. The builds and rotations and subgroups are irrelevant if 15 players get downed or straight killed on the first smash and have an uptime of like 50% or less.

I'm just trying to say that often people blame the builds and gear and rotations which is not the main reason for fail. Dont stand in fire.

[Sobx.1758]

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

the game does next to no teaching whatsoever

That's just a lie and it was already talked about enough with you avoiding to address anything each time, so... 🤷‍♂️

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The buildcraft and dps are, and about those, the game does not teach you anything at all

If that's what you still really think, then that's a reading comprehension issue, not "the game doesn't tell me" issue. There's no "buildcraft guide", there's reading each of the ingredient -traits, skills, attributes- and then adding 1+1...+1. All it takes is basic reading ability and an actual will to do it.

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

And, frankly, if someone didn't improve in that regard throughout the core and two expansions, expecting this to change in the third expansion is..

Pretty much already responded to this btw: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/112664-i-feel-excluded-from-eod-because-soo-won-meta-event-is-too-hard/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1628913

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Tachenon.5270]

Speaking of high DPS auto-attacks, is there a build for any profession in this game that will let one ignore any and all circles of doom (of any color, shape, or size) while dishing out, say, a 25k auto-attack while simultaneously not flopping around like a dyspeptic toad? 'Cause I'll play it! If there is one. And it's not the auto-bomb engineer...

[Cuks.8241]

3 minutes ago, Tachenon.5270 said:

Speaking of high DPS auto-attacks, is there a build for any profession in this game that will let one ignore any and all circles of doom (of any color, shape, or size) while dishing out, say, a 25k auto-attack while simultaneously not flopping around like a dyspeptic toad? 'Cause I'll play it! If there is one. And it's not the auto-bomb engineer...

Well no, the circles of doom is what differentiates hard content from the rest in this game. Kinda the point I'm trying to make in here.

Speaking of DPS checks in this game is an offense to DPS checks. Now all DPS checks from other games laugh at GW2 DPS checks. Haha this check is at 20% of top potential and calls itself a check.

People are too worked out about DPS and gear and builds without context. What I think is actually trully harder in this game is the action combat mechanics. Avoiding circles of doom that come and kill relatively fast. If you are crisp in avoiding all the bad stuff, the dps part is quite straightforward.

[Gibson.4036]

To the conversation about whether the game teaches well, doesn't the disagreement about what's going on support that?

I see people saying "It's really the poor DPS of poor builds", "It's really that too many are gettting downed too often," "It's really which mechanics Soo-Won decides to do in what order", and after the one failed meta I've experienced chat was full of "not enough of you attacked the tail".

Maybe it's really a little bit of all of these things?

At any rate, if the people who really pay attention and spend time thinking about it and discussing it have so much disagreement about what's really making people fail, how is the average player walking away with a clear idea of "next time I can try to do X for a better chance at success"?

[Veprovina.4876]

44 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

What's the difference between "I have permanent selfish alacrity" and "I naturally have lower cooldowns"? What, more button press, more strippable in PvP?

Exactly my point. But i never said permanent alacrity, i meant - if they want alacrity as a buff to others, sure, but in lesser capacity, it should probably be more selfish. And if it's completely selfish, then permanent alacrity = shorter cooldowns, and non permanent alacrity can function as now.

 

But yea, alacrity as a buff is weird. They should have left it exclusive to chrono and reworked what it does.

Cause right now - if permanent alacrity is a staple of every squad, and required for content - then just remove alacrity and give everyone shorter cooldowns. 

[The Boz.2038]

4 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

To the conversation about whether the game teaches well, doesn't the disagreement about what's going on support that?

I see people saying "It's really the poor DPS of poor builds", "It's really that too many are gettting downed too often," "It's really which mechanics Soo-Won decides to do in what order", and after the one failed meta I've experienced chat was full of "not enough of you attacked the tail".

Maybe it's really a little bit of all of these things?

At any rate, if the people who really pay attention and spend time thinking about it and discussing it have so much disagreement about what's really making people fail, how is the average player walking away with a clear idea of "next time I can try to do X for a better chance at success"?

Nah, we have a pretty good idea why metas fail. Some people just find it trendy to say "No, that's not the reason, the meta is bad is the reason".

[Cuks.8241]

8 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

To the conversation about whether the game teaches well, doesn't the disagreement about what's going on support that?

I see people saying "It's really the poor DPS of poor builds", "It's really that too many are gettting downed too often," "It's really which mechanics Soo-Won decides to do in what order", and after the one failed meta I've experienced chat was full of "not enough of you attacked the tail".

Maybe it's really a little bit of all of these things?

At any rate, if the people who really pay attention and spend time thinking about it and discussing it have so much disagreement about what's really making people fail, how is the average player walking away with a clear idea of "next time I can try to do X for a better chance at success"?

All contribute. But written in the gaming gaming holy book, page 1, its the first all and most important truth. Don't stand in fire because dead player does 0 dps.

[Gibson.4036]

34 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

All contribute. But written in the gaming gaming holy book, page 1, its the first all and most important truth. Don't stand in fire because dead player does 0 dps.

My first encounter with the fight, I went down a handful of times. WPed back.

The second time I ran it, I got pulled off the platform once. I was able to successfully avoid all the AoEs. Not downed once. I was spending a lot of my movement just avoiding things, though, and would frequently reach the head or tail just as she was switching. I'm not sure how much I contributed in damage due to that.

Perhaps next time I'll be even better at avoiding things, and contribute more to actually doing damage.

After my third run, the one I mentioned people were blaming not attacking the tail, I asked advice on how to reach it in time. Was told to slot more movement abilities (add blink to my bar, I'd already been using jaunt). I was also told that visually, the tail is attackable before it looks like it. So it's best to start making your way to the tail early.

This made me think of the golem in Echovald. First time I came across it, even though I picked up on "hide in the blue circle" early, I had the hardest time getting there in time. Got downed several times. The second time, I figured out that in order to consistently make it to the hiding place, I can't rely on the NPC telling me to and I can't rely on the blue circle. As soon as I see the golem bring his fists down in the attack that leaves behind the scrap, I need to beeline for where I know in advance the circle will be.

Which is an odd design.

[Sobx.1758]

10 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

I mean. For one. The story is literally unskippable. A major design flaw in of itself. 

How is this responding to anything I wrote? (maybe it does, but I just can't see it, need explanation about how you went from what I wrote to this particular response)

Quote

And the results speak for themselves. The event didn't change anything. No one is suddenly motivated to learn. It's not designed to create such a feeling. 

Interesting. From what I see, it did change something and there are people that are alreayd improving, while others started asking questions they didn't before. But as I said: whether or not the players are improving at all here can be said only by anet -and that's in a long term, learning was never some magic switch going from 0 to 100 in an instant. This seems to be a thing that some people on this forum fail to understand (or just refuse to accept).

Quote

I mean... the current alternative is you do random stuff until the boss battle begins. Getting rid of all pre events entirely would improve the frustrations and lessen the issues with the fight.

But as it stands it is teaching something useless before then requiring completely different skills while still using up the full time for everything. That's just an incredibly cheap attempt at turning the argument against me while simultaneously

misunderstanding the point^^

Is it misunderstanding the point or is it just disagreeing with your idea about each event somehow needing to have its own tutorial attached every time it starts? If you think the chain of events there is too long and might use some trimming, then say just that. But the events -meta or not- just don't need their built in tutorials. Figuring things out is part of the game -and it's not some insane equasion so you don't have 50 different approaches to solve it. Vast majority of them are pretty straightforward.

Quote

They can't. That's the issue. The more people the less consistency you experience, the less you can distinguish your own impact without third party tools and the more obfuscated the games feedback about your gameplay efficiency is.

Players can't see whether or not something is lacking in their gameplay is the problem. The game tests skills that do not communicate well in this format. Which prevents self reflection.

The players that want to improve, will. The players that want to help are already there and have been for a long time. Learning from failing is also learning. People missing absolute basics need to stop trying to skip the learning process and jump right into "latest content for latest rewards".

Quote

Difficulty does not mean the same as challenge. Challenge means something that requires effort and tests your ability. Difficulty means something hard to deal with.

It doesn't mean the same, but it's directly related to it.

Quote

Causing hardships.

Any time I need to learn something new, it's hard, so it's bad, eh? 😄

Quote

*have already done so. It's not like the game is lacking either challenging or difficult content. Both exist plentiful. 

And yet, people that want a reward, still get incentivized to play harder contenet than they'd usually do and I know for a fact, at least some of those players already looked into their gameplay and improved. So... no, I can't say you're correct here. About the extent to which it can/will work, as I've already said: only anet will have that information, so there's no need for you or me to pretend that we know "everyone will"/"everyone won't" improve. The fact remains that I know some of the players that already improved because they wanted the reward. So your "absolute" quoted above is just false.

Quote

Exactly. And yet, the population numbers on difficult content are unsustainable. The results speak for themselves. There may be small pockets of lovely communities who do just fine for themselves. But these kinds of communities are not capable of changing the larger player base. Either they are missing community management tools or have issues reaching players or something else makes it impossible. 

But it's not happening at significant scale. 

Harder content keeps getting introduced, so much for being unsustainable. What you're doing here is pretend you have the data you simply don't. But anet does.

Quote

But the fight is only delivering collective feedback and has several poorly designed features that have nothing to do with the challenge which make learning harder. See above and in my plentiful comments about it. 
The fight is making it really hard to learn from a failure. Which is why we see so little change in success rates and repeated nerfs. The overall population isn't learning from those failures. Not due to be lazy or any of those cheap excuses. But due to poor design. Of the encounter itself. As well as the combat feedback systems (aka, information you about how well you are doing right now)

Cool, and even if we go with that, at the very least the players/commies are delivering sprcific feedback. If something's explained how to do it, you didn't do it and you fail, chances are...  But I guess it doesn't count if the font isn't the color you want it to be. One way or another, there is feedback, there are oportunities to improve and there is a learning process in work there.

Quote

If that's your point then ANet needs to enforce that or offer better tools for excluding people.
I disagree with that notion. But even if that is your point the event is still poorly designed. It's still poor at providing feedback and it doesn't push people to learn the basics first and it makes it deliberately hard to exclude certain types of people. Open world makes gatekeeping deliberately hard. 

So, once again. The event is not doing what you want it to. It's not doing what you claim it does. It could have been designed to do that. But it wasn't. 

The game explains these things. If people skip it, there's not much the game can do about it. Other than actually having events with at least somehow desired rewards that require the players to achieve certain level of gameplay. Slapping "remember to read what your trait does, so you understand what you pick and your build kind-of-sort-of makes sense for what you want it to do" throughout the whole game and evry expansion because some people refuse to read the explanations in the first place is a pretty weak idea. Duh, people got so used to complaining about "BBs aren't explained!" that after EoD release, some of them still claimed they went through training grounds and nothing about BB was explained, but barely "mentioned". You can't make people read, but you can make people want to improve because they need to in order to get the reward they kind of want.

Quote

As pointed out above. A challenge requires effort and tests your skills. A difficult encounter just causes hardships.

We don't need to improve, because there's no hard content. So lets introduce harder content so there's a reason to utilize what the game actually offers. But we can't, because harder content "just causes hardships" and someone on the forum said that's it's a bad thing. I seriously don't understand the point you're trying to make with this repeated "just causes hardships". It doesn't cause hardships if you improve and that's exactly the push to improve.

Quote

It's not challenging. It's difficult.

 

And you keep repeating this in -for what it looks for me- an attempt to grasp for straws and claim what you've said isn't contradictory, but both of these terms are subjective and for the most part, they're directly, heavily related to each other. It almost seems as if we're not talking about the same word here or something? I went ahead and checked, since maybe it was me:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/challenging

challenging -difficult, in a way that tests your ability or determination:

Nope, seems like I understand it correctly. So please stop repeating this as if it changes the meaning of the posts in this comment chain, since it just doesn't.

Quote

But the format of the content (open world meta), the design of the boss fight itself (tight, hard enrage. Mechanics, AI) and the difficulty are mismatched.

All three aspects can be changed in several ways to solve most if not all issues with the fight.

How exactly?

Quote

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that old open world content is still the highest populated content in the game. For 10 years most players enjoy a lot of their time doing that kind of content and happily pay to keep the game afloat.

You don't actually have that information and you seem to be ignoring the fact that core is the only thing available to f2p/trial players, while making your estimates/guess.

Quote

Why is there even a need for drastic change to that? Why up difficulty sharply and risk antagonizing those players? Isn't that an unnecessary risk?

I do mean this as honest question.

Didn't I already explain that in the previous post? People will ignore tutorials and mechanics if they don't need to use it. The game needs to go forward or it will die from stagnation.

Quote

Isn't is selfish to demand a sudden and steep increase in skill just because you hope for more of the content you yourself enjoy most? 

What's selfish is your claim that said "I didn't learn anything from this event, so there's no reason for it to exist". The reason here is to let other people know they can improve, just because you don't need to, it doesn't make it pointless.

 

btw. I've started responding to this post, joined a random lfg group ~30 minutes into prep and succeeded. Nobody improves, right (and just to make it clear: when I said above "I know for a fact some people do improve", I was not even talking about "completing the event with pugs", but about actual players I know that already got nudged into improving by learning what they previously ignored).

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Cuks.8241]

1 hour ago, Gibson.4036 said:

My first encounter with the fight, I went down a handful of times. WPed back.

The second time I ran it, I got pulled off the platform once. I was able to successfully avoid all the AoEs. Not downed once. I was spending a lot of my movement just avoiding things, though, and would frequently reach the head or tail just as she was switching. I'm not sure how much I contributed in damage due to that.

Perhaps next time I'll be even better at avoiding things, and contribute more to actually doing damage.

After my third run, the one I mentioned people were blaming not attacking the tail, I asked advice on how to reach it in time. Was told to slot more movement abilities (add blink to my bar, I'd already been using jaunt). I was also told that visually, the tail is attackable before it looks like it. So it's best to start making your way to the tail early.

This made me think of the golem in Echovald. First time I came across it, even though I picked up on "hide in the blue circle" early, I had the hardest time getting there in time. Got downed several times. The second time, I figured out that in order to consistently make it to the hiding place, I can't rely on the NPC telling me to and I can't rely on the blue circle. As soon as I see the golem bring his fists down in the attack that leaves behind the scrap, I need to beeline for where I know in advance the circle will be.

Which is an odd design.

Well I wouldnt slot movement abilities but if it helps why not. Its not necessary in my opinion. Aurene has a line before tail appears. Something about soowon casting bubbles from tail. Also the tail hp bar appears in the event UI. If you just beeline across at that time its fine on timing. Ignore other mobs they dont do anything. On the way do dmg to bubbles. 

But its generally normal to be confused first runs. Everyone was. Fight is heavy on mechanics and with time when these get under your skin its easy. Thats why some of us advocate slow on the nerfs because many players are still confused on the mechanics. 

[notebene.3190]

Lots of pages, but if you happen to see this.

I had the same feelings at first, but then reminded myself of how scared I was of Tequatl (I know, right?) and Triple Trouble. I bet I went back after a year on Tequatl I think, after it was down to a science, and started having a blast. Went every day for a really long time. Triple Trouble I finally did after I came back to GW2 (after having left for about 13 months right after HoT came out) but before they 'sprinkled' more masteries around the old world. The only way to finish off your OG mastery tracks was to do some fractals and TT. Ended up having an okay time eventually with TT, though I never went back after I got everything done. I sadly still don't do fractals.

So for now, I've 'largely' put the DE meta in that bucket. I've tried and failed 4 times over the past 2 weeks. I do my best. I saw a good video that shows how the whole thing works with lots of shapes and colors, was super helpful. My character build is most certainly probably not good, but it's how I like to play, and I always do my best.

Someday, I will be on a winning side, and I'm still hopeful that someday it might end up being something I like to do a few times a week, like the AB meta from HoT. 🙂

[Astralporing.1957]

47 minutes ago, notebene.3190 said:

Lots of pages, but if you happen to see this.

I had the same feelings at first, but then reminded myself of how scared I was of Tequatl (I know, right?) and Triple Trouble. I bet I went back after a year on Tequatl I think, after it was down to a science, and started having a blast.

Again, what a lot of people forget (or don't know about) is that Tequatl went through a series of nerfs, with some being really massive in effect. If you want to compare, go back not to Teq, but to TT - that one encounter was not adjusted, so how it is nowadays is solely an effect of power creep and players' learning it.

Hint: last time i saw TT, the experience was very similar to how it was within two-three weeks after its release. Outside of a limited number of organized group attempts, TT is just not being done at all. Pugs very rarely even try it, and when they do, they always fail.

 

 

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

3 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Again, what a lot of people forget (or don't know about) is that Tequatl went through a series of nerfs, with some being really massive in effect.

DE has been nerfed a bunch of times already as well. Compare the meta on release to what it is now. 

 

6 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Hint: last time i saw TT, the experience was very similar to how it was within two-three weeks after its release. Outside of a limited number of organized group attempts, TT is just not being done at all. Pugs very rarely even try it, and when they do, they always fail.

TT requires coordination from 3 lanes, each lane having its own Commander, each having to do certain tasks at the same time. DE doesn't require coordination from 3 lanes during Escort, only during the splits, but that is a very generous timer.

[Alaryn.4597]

As a consumer, I demand the next phase of nerfs.

[chronometria.3708]

Was just in arborstone and someone pointed out an LFG group requiring 1500LI.