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

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:You're in no position to judge that for any other person. If someone says the game is not easy and not accessible, he's right.

Following the very same logic, if I say the game is easy and accessible, I'm right. Now what?

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:You're in no position to judge that for any other person. If someone says the game is not easy and not accessible, he's right.

Following the very same logic, if I say the game is easy and accessible, I'm right. Now what?

Then I would agree with you. If you say it's easy and accessible for you, that's great. Now we need to figure out what to do with the other guy. It's like if there's a building with three stairs leading into it, and you say "this is easy and accessible, I can climb these three stairs, no problem." That's great. If someone rolls up and says "I can't get up those stairs, I'd need some alternate way to get in," then that's true too, and you can't argue that just because you find it easy to get in, they must also. The only choice you have in the matter is whether you help them get in, or stand in the way of them getting in.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You're in no position to judge that for any other person. If someone says the game is not easy and not accessible, he's right.

Following the very same logic, if I say the game is easy and accessible, I'm right. Now what?

Then I would agree with you. If you say it's easy and accessible for you, that's great. Now we need to figure out what to do with the other guy. It's like if there's a building with three stairs leading into it, and you say "this is easy and accessible, I can climb these three stairs, no problem." That's great. If someone rolls up and says "I can't get up those stairs, I'd need some alternate way to get in," then that's true too, and you can't argue that just because you find it easy to get in, they must also. The only choice you have in the matter is whether you

help

them get in, or stand in the way of them getting in.

Except it's not like that. Because you're talking about the tiny, minor part of the game which was designed to not be as easy as the rest of the game is. Insisting on making it easy as well is selfish beyond measure - you want all of this HUGE game, all for yourself. You're not willing to let anyone who wants something different from you have even that tiny, minor part in question. Quite childish, to be honest.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot... You're telling yourself that "you're not taking it away". Which, as I've said before, is only an illusion. But nevermind me. Ask yourself - are you willing to risk being that selfish? What if you are actually wrong about that and it turns out you ruin the raids for the raiders? How would you feel, knowing your childish attitude killed perfectly good content and chased off these players from the game?

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Feanor.2358" said:Except it's not like that. Because you're talking about the tiny, minor part of the game which was designed to not be as easy as the rest of the game is.

That statement does not justify its existence.

Insisting on making it easy as well is selfish beyond measure - you want all of this HUGE game, all for yourself.

Again, I've been quite clear that I do not want to alter the existing raids in ANY way, even though that would certainly be on the table if split development is not. People who want to continue playing the harder version can continue to do so. This would be an alternative, in addition to that version.

You're not willing to let anyone who wants something different from you have even that tiny, minor part in question. Quite childish, to be honest.

You are the one insisting that other players not be allowed to play with your toys. Keep in mind, you have access to all that other stuff too, nothing is being excluded from you, and yet you are insisting on exclusive access to this one portion. Careful about glass houses.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot... You're telling yourself that "you're not taking it away". Which, as I've said before, is only an illusion. But nevermind me. Ask yourself - are you willing to risk being that selfish? What if you are actually wrong about that and it turns out you ruin the raids for the raiders? How would you feel, knowing your childish attitude killed perfectly good content and chased off these players from the game?

How do you feel about the players chased off from GW2 because the developer took the bigger risk of adding raids in the first place? If you'd prefer to nullify that risk then I could live with that, wipe out the raids entirely and reset the game to how it was before they existed. But I tend to thik that you actually see the value in taking risks, so long as they are aimed at things you value, just not if they are aimed at things that you don't value.

[belognom.3685]

And convo went to leg armor again.

Lemme get it back. On the subject of raid bosses being hard to learn. I was just thinking, one of the games I used to play, introduced a very nice system.

A person that was doing dungeon had x3 self resurrections for first x5 completions of any dungeon. Meaning then can go attempt, die, res, try, learn.

First 5 completions after that game assumed you know enough to go do it. No more resu. I was thinking that it's something Anet could look at really. Cut those LI drops from those x5 so it won't be abused and this should work really nicely imo.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:How do you feel about the players chased off from GW2 because the developer took the bigger risk of adding raids in the first place? If you'd prefer to nullify that risk then I could live with that, wipe out the raids entirely and reset the game to how it was before they existed. But I tend to thik that you actually see the value in taking risks, so long as they are aimed at things you value, just not if they are aimed at things that you don't value.

Nah. I don't see this as a risk. It's a diversification, essentially quite the opposite of taking a risk.

[Ohoni.6057]

@belognom.3685 said:Lemme get it back. On the subject of raid bosses being hard to learn. I was just thinking, one of the games I used to play, introduced a very nice system.

When was anyone talking about raid bosses being hard to learn? I don't think that's anyone's issue. They're pretty easy to learn. The problem is that if you make mistakes, then the encounter fails and you need to start over.

First 5 completions after that game assumed you know enough to go do it. No more resu. I was thinking that it's something Anet could look at really. Cut those LI drops from those x5 so it won't be abused and this should work really nicely imo.

Might be nice to have, but I don't think it would actually solve the larger issues.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:How do you feel about the players chased off from GW2 because the developer took the

bigger

risk of adding raids in the first place? If you'd prefer to nullify that risk then I could live with that, wipe out the raids entirely and reset the game to how it was before they existed. But I tend to thik that you actually see the value in taking risks, so long as they are aimed at things

you

value, just not if they are aimed at things that you don't value.

Nah. I don't see this as a risk. It's a diversification, essentially quite the opposite of taking a risk.

And that's the problem, you don't see.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@belognom.3685 said:Lemme get it back. On the subject of raid bosses being hard to learn. I was just thinking, one of the games I used to play, introduced a very nice system.

When was anyone talking about raid bosses being hard to learn? I don't think that's anyone's issue. They're pretty easy to

learn.

The

problem

is that if you make mistakes, then the encounter fails and you need to start over.

And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience. It needs to fail in order to create a sense of real danger, real difficulty and real challenge.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:How do you feel about the players chased off from GW2 because the developer took the

bigger

risk of adding raids in the first place? If you'd prefer to nullify that risk then I could live with that, wipe out the raids entirely and reset the game to how it was before they existed. But I tend to thik that you actually see the value in taking risks, so long as they are aimed at things

you

value, just not if they are aimed at things that you don't value.

Nah. I don't see this as a risk. It's a diversification, essentially quite the opposite of taking a risk.

And that's the problem, you don't see.

A lot of "problems" you see I don't consider problems. And all for good reasons.

[Grogba.6204]

@Tyson.5160 said:Maybe if that player had 22 million health, split into separate characters at 66% and 33% and could instant kill you if you didn’t step in his green circles...

Good thing greens do not instantly kill you and the boss has been done with a minimum of two players (before distortion nerf) and three man (before and after distortion nerf) by simply outhealing the mechanic...

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Feanor.2358" said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that you value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

It needs to fail in order to create a sense of real danger, real difficulty and real challenge.

That sounds like a hard mode thing, which is fine, in hard mode, but not everyone wants that, and there should be versions without that.

A lot of "problems" you see I don't consider problems.

Agreed, but not for good reasons, just because they are outside of your personal experience and you seem to have difficulty putting yourself in anyone else's shoes.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

Like, I don't know... open world? :astonished:

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

Like, I don't know... open world? :astonished:

Sure, what's your suggestion?

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

Like, I don't know... open world? :astonished:

Sure, what's your suggestion?

It's pretty clear - if you don't like playing hard content, just don't. The game is literally full of face-roll easy one. Enjoy it.

[Bladestrom.6425]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

It needs to fail in order to create a sense of real danger, real difficulty and real challenge.

That sounds like a hard mode thing, which is fine, in hard mode, but not everyone wants that, and there should be versions without that.

A lot of "problems" you see I don't consider problems.

Agreed, but

not

for good reasons, just because they are outside of your personal experience and you seem to have difficulty putting yourself in anyone else's shoes.

Exactly. WOW had the exact same thing, elitist player demanding that raids remain tightly tuned because that's the only way they are fun, when in reality they were trying to keep the exclusive club exclusive for only players that can committing to long periods of continuous play sessions. Then Blizzard realized the majority of player base wanted to experience the content too, but in a more relaxed easier format, and now the vast majority of player enjoy raids. Same deal going on here in GW2.

Example : i spent 10 thousand hours raiding on a single main a long time ago, I know how to raid. However my lifestyle has changed, i'm playing a more casual mmorpg now now and I still want to enjoy 10 man raids along with the majority of the player base but in a format where you can lfg it and its easy enough that both the build drama and elitism subsides.

[Grogba.6204]

Raids in GW2 are as casual as it gets.

[Feanor.2358]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

It needs to fail in order to create a sense of real danger, real difficulty and real challenge.

That sounds like a hard mode thing, which is fine, in hard mode, but not everyone wants that, and there should be versions without that.

A lot of "problems" you see I don't consider problems.

Agreed, but

not

for good reasons, just because they are outside of your personal experience and you seem to have difficulty putting yourself in anyone else's shoes.

Exactly. WOW had the exact same thing, elitist player demanding that raids remain tightly tuned because that's the only way they are fun, when in reality they were trying to keep the exclusive club exclusive for only players that can committing to long periods of continuous play sessions. Then Blizzard realized the majority of player base wanted to experience the content too, but in a more relaxed easier format, and now the vast majority of player enjoy raids. Same deal going on here in GW2.

Example : i spent 10 thousand hours raiding on a single main a long time ago, I know how to raid. However my lifestyle has changed, i'm playing a more casual mmorpg now now and I still want to enjoy 10 man raids along with the majority of the player base but in a format where you can lfg it and its easy enough that both the build drama and elitism subsides.

But that won't be raid. You can get exactly the same feeling by just going on a world boss event. No build drama, no elitism, easy to join, easy to kill. What difference does the number of players make? None.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Feanor.2358 said:But that won't be raid.Don't call those raids then, if that'll make you happier. It's not like that specific name matters in this discussion.

[Tyson.5160]

@Grogba.6204 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:Maybe if that player had 22 million health, split into separate characters at 66% and 33% and could instant kill you if you didn’t step in his green circles...

Good thing greens do not instantly kill you and the boss has been done with a minimum of two players (before distortion nerf) and three man (before and after distortion nerf) by simply outhealing the mechanic...

Yes Grogba, good, agree that soloing a raid boss is the exact same thing as solo roaming in WvW.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

Like, I don't know... open world? :astonished:

Sure, what's your suggestion?

It's pretty clear - if you don't like playing hard content, just don't. The game is literally

full

of face-roll easy one. Enjoy it.

No, I meant your Open World suggestion. You said that Open World should have alternatives like raids should have alternatives, what would that entail to you?

@Grogba.6204 said:Raids in GW2 are as casual as it gets.

Clearly not, since players have suggested ways it could be even more casual.

@Feanor.2358 said:But that won't be raid. You can get exactly the same feeling by just going on a world boss event. No build drama, no elitism, easy to join, easy to kill. What difference does the number of players make? None.

Semantics. If that wouldn't be "a raid" in your eyes, fine, whatever, who cares? What matters is that this is the experience some of us want to have available, whatever you choose to call it.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:And this is not a problem. It is an essential part of the experience.

No, it's not.

It's a part that

you

value, and those that value it should experience it, but not everyone does value it, and those who do not, should have alternatives.

Like, I don't know... open world? :astonished:

Sure, what's your suggestion?

It's pretty clear - if you don't like playing hard content, just don't. The game is literally

full

of face-roll easy one. Enjoy it.

No, I meant your Open World suggestion. You said that Open World should have alternatives like raids should have alternatives, what would that entail to you?

Nope, I didn't say that. I said the alternative you're looking for already exists, and it is the open world. Personally, I don't think the game needs an alternative to the open world. What would it be like? And why would it exist in the first place? It won't offer any gameplay experience that's not already in the game. So it isn't needed.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Grogba.6204 said:Raids in GW2 are as casual as it gets.

Clearly not, since players have suggested ways it could be even more casual.

@Feanor.2358 said:But that won't be raid. You can get exactly the same feeling by just going on a world boss event. No build drama, no elitism, easy to join, easy to kill. What difference does the number of players make? None.

Semantics. If that wouldn't be "a raid" in your eyes, fine, whatever, who cares? What matters is that this is the experience some of us want to have available,

whatever

you choose to call it.

See above. It wouldn't be a raid not because I randomly choose a definition for the term, it wouldn't be one because it wouldn't give the same gameplay experience.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Feanor.2358" said:Nope, I didn't say that. I said the alternative you're looking for already exists, and it is the open world.

Oh, then no, Open World has nothing to do with the alternative I'm looking for. It'd be like someone coming in and asking for a chocolate cake, and you hand them a chocolate shake and say "eh, basically the same thing."

Personally, I don't think the game needs an alternative to the open world. What would it be like? And why would it exist in the first place? It won't offer any gameplay experience that's not already in the game. So it isn't needed.

That's what I was curious about when you proposed it.

See above. It wouldn't be a raid not because I randomly choose a definition for the term, it wouldn't be one because it wouldn't give the same gameplay experience.

And I'm saying "ok, let's go with that." You believe that it would be so different a gameplay experience that it could no longer be called a "raid," by your definition. Ok, I couldn't care less about that. The thing we are talking about is:

[A form of content that takes place on existing raid maps, in which you fight the existing raid enemies, in which all the mechanics of their encounters are identical to the current ones, with the exception that the penalties for failing those mechanics are reduced significantly, and which, on completion, offer the same varieties of rewards as the current raid system, just in reduced quantities and/or slower acquisition conditions]

Now, you insist that this couldn't be described as "a raid," by your definition? Fine. Irrelevant. Call them a "Buckaroo Fancy Adventure" for all that matters, what matters is that this gameplay experience is playable. That is the thing I want to be in the game, and I don't care what they decide to label it.

[Feanor.2358]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:And I'm saying "ok, let's go with that."

Fine. Go ahead, make your own game and go with that. :)

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:And I'm saying "ok, let's go with that."

Fine. Go ahead, make your own game and go with that. :)

I don't have the resources, but I am providing customer feedback to ANet that I would enjoy their product more if they developed these features, and that I believe a good many others would feel the same way.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:And I'm saying "ok, let's go with that."

Fine. Go ahead, make your own game and go with that. :)

I don't have the resources, but I am providing customer feedback to ANet that I would enjoy their product more if they developed these features, and that I believe a good many others would feel the same way.

Beliefs do not pay bills you know.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:And I'm saying "ok, let's go with that."

Fine. Go ahead, make your own game and go with that. :)

I don't have the resources, but I am providing customer feedback to ANet that I would enjoy their product more if they developed these features, and that I believe a good many others would feel the same way.

Beliefs do not pay bills you know.

No, happy customers do, which is why feedback is so important.