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

[maddoctor.2738]

@"STIHL.2489" said:1: Yes the flow is the same.. because for no apparent reason.. the maker opted to apply some arbitrary exchange rate, I could change them to current exchange between Won and rupies, and it would have made no difference, as I still would have worked from NcSofts numbers, not that persons numbers, so it makes no sense to even bother to change them to start with.

2: Look at the chart again.. compare the downward slope Post HoT to Pre HoT.

The flow is the same so the argument is the same, why are you still so upset about a currency change? The result doesn't change whichever currency you use. The change happened for the rather obvious reason, to give perspective to those reading it that probably have no idea what a Korean Won is equal to. I don't understand what YOUR problem is about it. Plus it was easier to post an image from reddit than upload my own image, since the results are the same...

With 2 exceptions, 4Q2013 and 2Q2015 that the game spiked, the drop Pre HoT is higher compared to Post HoT. Post HoT can be said to even be stable, in a decline yes, but stable. Not gonna go at the release drop, but 1Q13 onwards to 3Q13 had a much steeper drop than anything we've seen Post HoT. 4Q13 to 4Q14 also had a much larger drop in revenue than Post HoT. Then it went up and down for the next 3 quarters, with that curious 2Q15 spike, which was during a content drought, but Heart of Thorns was announced there, while pre-purchasing started in June 2015, which is 2Q15 (curiously) and of course part of 3Q15 also contained pre-purchases.

I don't know if GW2 China is included or not, if Arenanet makes any kind of revenue from it.

Edit:You claimed that the 4Q2013 spike was due to:

This is spot on, I mean really.. GW2 never needed the hardcore players to start with, when you think about it.. GW2's best non-expansion Quarter was Scarlet's Attack on Lions Arch.. this was only beat by the Launch of HoT. Which tells us that is story and fun that sell this game.. not challenge and raids.

Scarlet's attack was in 2014, not in 2013, Escape from Lion's Arch in February 2014 and Battle for Lion's Arch in March 2014.So, what did we get in the fourth quarter of 2013?Twilight Assault and World vs World Season 1 in October (adding a new rather challenging path to Twilight Arbor, which was probably harder than most other paths)Tower of Nightmares and lots of new Fractals in November.

before the Tiers, all Fractals were classified as Hardcore content regardless of tierSo yeah half of what we got in 4Q2013 (during the spike in revenue) was hardcore content and not easy content. Imagine that, the ONLY quarter in the game's history that we got more challenging content (and the first WvW season) we got a nice revenue boost.

Of course according to the NCSoft earnings report, the 4Q2013 spike is attributed to year end sales and NOT content, but at least get your facts straight:

"Guild Wars 2 was strong on the back of year-end sales promotions."

[Bladestrom.6425]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:LoL.. before the Tiers, all Fractals were classified as

Hardcore

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

Actually they have made a ton changes to fractals over the time (see patch notes) to make them more accessible, then in addition they were not balanced for full ascended gear etc etc so that's another source of scaling down of difficulty(henc now people solo some of them), then the potions became easier to gain, and so on and so forth. Its actually a really good point, Fractals is a great template and evidence of the benefits of having looser tuned instances.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

The existence and design of Fractals raises interesting questions. If the design goal of raids was to be the hardest PvE content, as ANet stated, then the entirety of Fractals is a training ground for raids, complete with a ramping up of difficulty though the Fractal tiers. Then, raids offer a further opportunity for players not ready for the hardest raid encounters by providing bosses of varying difficulty.

So, there are already two ramp-ups in difficulty which can prepare players to tackle the hardest raid encounters. With that in mind, it doesn't seem that further preparatory encounters should be needed for players who want to work up to raids. That means that a substantial number of those who might benefit from easy tier raids already have the opportunity to work into the existing raid structure. That leaves the people who won't touch raids as is unless the difficulty is stepped down because they are not interested in "working up to it," -- leaving aside whether that attitude ought to be catered to.

I don't expect certain posters to accept this opinion. However, the answer to the question raised in the OP, "Do raids need an easy-normal-hard difficulty mode?" is a resounding, "No." The truth is that there are some individuals who "need" an easy mode, but only by the definition of need that reads, "A thing that is wanted or required." The thread has failed to prove that the game needs more difficulty modes (according to the definition that reads, "circumstances in which something is necessary.")

[IndigoSundown.5419]

This thread is about raids. However, the demand for easier versions raises another interesting question. If raid content presentation is to be altered, the only reason to do so would be to cater to the desires of people who want them at a lower difficulty point and have no interest in working into the existing raids. The question, then, is why is this demographic special? Why not present all content at differing tiers of difficulty? After all, that would be the fair thing. Why easy raids, but no hard open world bosses, hard Living and XPac story, and hard mode for open world? Heck, why not hard mode raids? One thing I find interesting in the poll was that the number of people whose opinion was, "We need an easy but not a hard mode for raids." (59) is the same as those whose opinion was, "We need a hard but not an easy mode for raids." (59). An almost exact number (60) chose, "Raids have problems, but we need a better solution."

The most obvious issue with adding difficulty tiers to any content, much less every bit of content, is that this would add development time for ANet to come out with anything. If there is one constant in complaints about GW2 -- any MMO I've seen, for that matter -- it's that the developers don't push content out fast enough. Increasing the workload for one -- or all -- types of PvE content might have no affect on player impatience resulting in active account bleed, but I doubt it. Reductions in the player-base, while no doubt inevitable, help none of us, with the possible exception of posters so bitter about the game that they'd enjoy watching it burn.

[Cyninja.2954]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:1: Yes the flow is the same.. because for no apparent reason.. the maker opted to apply some arbitrary exchange rate, I could change them to current exchange between Won and rupies, and it would have made no difference, as I still would have worked from NcSofts numbers, not that persons numbers, so it makes no sense to even bother to change them to start with.

2: Look at the chart again.. compare the downward slope Post HoT to Pre HoT.

The flow is the same so the argument is the same, why are you still so upset about a currency change? The result doesn't change whichever currency you use. The change happened for the rather obvious reason, to give perspective to those reading it that probably have no idea what a Korean Won is equal to. I don't understand what YOUR problem is about it. Plus it was easier to post an image from reddit than upload my own image, since the results are the same...

His problem is that after blind firing an insult he now has to somehow justify it.

Yes in a perfect world and for detailed analysis one would have used appropriate exchange rates and factored for respective purchasing power for quarters (or at least annually) and with more detailed data (which is not available to us) separated for currency conversions and currency reserves of NCSoft and/or Arenanet.

Using a specific rate of conversion though circumvents all of this if ones interest is only to show convert while keeping the scale in tact. I'll repeat that: keeping the scale intact requires the use of only 1 rate if you are merely converting into a different currency (obviously with reference to the conversion rate).

In plain English: calling the numbers in that graph wrong is a strait up lie. At best they are a conversion of the official numbers for easier understanding into a more familiar currency. But then again the original picture was not part of the thread and after skimming through the reddit thread and calling out mistakes (which had been fixed) because reading beyond the first line where someone calls out a mistake is to difficult, what was that you asked?

@STIHL.2489 said:I gotta ask. no insult meant.. but do you look into this stuff to get a larger understanding, or do you just goggle what you think supports your stand and parrot that?

So I got to ask, no insult meant, but do you actually read beyond the first point in a thread which might in anyway support your argument without realizing that said problems were fixed long ago?

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:The existence and design of Fractals raises interesting questions. If the design goal of raids was to be the hardest PvE content, as ANet stated, then the entirety of Fractals is a training ground for raids, complete with a ramping up of difficulty though the Fractal tiers. Then, raids offer a further opportunity for players not ready for the hardest raid encounters by providing bosses of varying difficulty.

So, there are already two ramp-ups in difficulty which can prepare players to tackle the hardest raid encounters. With that in mind, it doesn't seem that further preparatory encounters should be needed for players who want to work up to raids. That means that a substantial number of those who might benefit from easy tier raids already have the opportunity to work into the existing raid structure. That leaves the people who won't touch raids as is unless the difficulty is stepped down because they are not interested in "working up to it," -- leaving aside whether that attitude ought to be catered to.

I don't expect certain posters to accept this opinion. However, the answer to the question raised in the OP, "Do raids need an easy-normal-hard difficulty mode?" is a resounding, "No." The truth is that there are some individuals who "need" an easy mode, but only by the definition of need that reads, "A thing that is wanted or required." The thread has failed to prove that the game needs more difficulty modes (according to the definition that reads, "circumstances in which something is necessary.")

While I always would say "no" to the necessity of certain features and modes, the route(s) you propose as preparatory is far from ideal.

Mostly stemming from being unintuitive ( Why cherrypick bosses in some seemingly random order) or rather boring and grindy (IE. getting to higher fractal levels or obtaining more agony in order get to the harder fractals has not much to do with preparing for raids.) to more smaller difference between the modes, like teamstructuring, teambuilding, squad vs party, necessity of certain roles or simply difference in mechanics.

I definitely think the process of becoming ready for raids can be more streamlined or better indicated.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Sarrs.4831" said:I keep bringing up the "why is this argument about loot and not about the content" for a reason. Start there; drop the loot as an argument entirely and just talk about what you'd want to see out of an easy mode.

I've tried that. I usually don't even mention loot unless I'm replying to someone who is talking about it, but any time we start a discussion on content, someone inevitable says "yeah, but, obviously it can't have the good loot. . ." so of course a "of course it should have the good loot" response becomes necessary.

As much as I feel it should be just accepted as a given that the easy mode should contain a path to the Envoy armor, there are people devoted to preventing that, gatekeeping their shineys at any cost, so I think we just have to accept that the loot ANet chose to attach to raids is an intrinsic part of the raiding concept, and must be a part of any raiding alternatives discussion.

"I like to believe there is an invisible unicorn behind me. I have no reason to believe that isn't true."

That's an unreasonable claim though. It's very unlikely that there actually is a unicorn behind me, mainly because I'm indoors. I do believe there is a bookshelf behind me though, because there's been a bookshelf behind me every time I've checked. I don't know for certain that there's still one there, but it still seems the most likely possibility. Let me check. . . Ok, as of a few seconds ago, there was a bookshelf there. Will there be one later? I believe so, but as you imply, nobody can know for certain.

Still, I believe that it's much more likely that large numbers of players would benefit from having an easy mode with access to Envoy armor, and while I don't insist that you agree with me on that, it's going to take quite a lot to convince me otherwise.

@"maddoctor.2738" said:But you never convinced anyone that it actually is bad data. Only yourself. Check back a few pages. So having data is better than no data.

A bunch of people convinced that bad data is not bad does not make it good data. A bunch of people are convinced that angels exist and climate change is a hoax, they have plenty of data to support their position, and plenty of support that this is good data, that does not make it good data.

I think you are missing who is making the argument that Raids are bad for the game because of sales data.

I think I'm not caring. I'm just saying what I believe about the data presented, I make no quarrel with individuals.

Btw, something interesting occurred to me, so I ran the numbers. Sales in the quarters leading up to HoT were in the $18m range. They spiked with HoT, then fell below that level, right? But this is interesting, if you take the two HoT months, and cap them off at $18m too, as a "normal quarter" amount, and then set the remainder aside, and then you add that remainder across each of the quarters leading up to PoF, so that they average out, it actually stays relatively level, coming up short by only a couple million total over that seven quarters period from if it had just stayed at $18m across. That's kind of a convoluted way of describing it, but my point is that the expansion sort of averages out to a level revenues over it's "lifetime." I have no idea how it looks on their side of the balance sheets though.

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Actually it has, you've been called out on this by multiple people.

I

have

been called out on this by multiple people,

and every single one of them was wrong

. That shouldn't need explaining. They would like me to shut up, because they disagree with my position on the matter, so they insist that it's purely self-serving, when I've turned down numerous offers to benefit myself without helping others in the process. Would I benefit from an easy mode? Yes. Would I accept

just

collecting the personal benefits of it if it didn't mean a systemic change that would benefit everyone? NO. This is not about me, no matter how many "multiple people" want to assert that it is.

This right here, it's called arrogance, look it up:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

arrogance (according to merriam-webster):

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

There is a difference between sticking to your opinion and calling every one else stupid when you have provided 0 data, have 0 credibility in the field of discussion and have very clear personal motives.

But they also have 0 data, 0 credibility and very clear personal motives, so that's a wash. If I'm arrogant then so are they, they're just pushing their agenda of gatekeeping their game mode from the plebes, using whatever pseudoscience they can latch onto.

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want.

That's still not a useful comparison to make, since players are more likely to clear raid wings than full dungeons, based on how they are structured.

Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are.

Which is why the data you offered was worthless, because there was no data for "people who run instanced content," there was only data for "people who run a specific type of instanced content, in a specific way, within the pool of a biased source." At most, your data could be used to show a bare minimum pool, that if Efficiency said that X thousand players cleared a given dungeon then at least that many people cleared it, but you were using those numbers to extrapolate maximum sizes, or at the very least "maximum likely" sizes, and there's just no justification to use the data in that way.

And I'll just throw this out there, even though I am not considering it actual evidence, but if you believe your "data" is sound then this should matter to you, but off 4000h players, 90% of them are over Fractal level 20, which means they've put at least a little time and effort into that mode over the years. Even among the 500-1000 crowd, the top 50% are over level 22, and the top 75% over 8, so they've at least tried it. If your benchmark is "they've done some instanced content," those are reasonably large pools to use as the start of a wide end.

Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either.

And I have never disagreed on that point. Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe you've ever given a valid calculation or even rough estimate of the size of "players that would be interested in instanced content." Your current methodology is junk.

How large do YOU think the instanced content runner population of this game is?

The only correct answer is "I don't know." I believe that it is a significant portion of the population, not hardcore, but casual instance runners, but I have no more way of knowing the actual figure than you do, which in both cases would be "not at all."

@STIHL.2489 said:LOL.. how did Story Mode even affect Explorer mode.. Oh right.. now lets talk real truth.. it was not how hard or easy the content was, it was a lack of incentive to do easy mode that killed dungeons not how hard or easy Explorer mode was. The way that Story Mode was implemented by the infallible Anet team with the intention to be the casual pug content, but due to how it was actually put in had zero replayability,thus it tanked hard, this had nothing to do with how easy explorer mode was, ergo bad implementing of content that was supposed to target the Casual PUG that hurt them, not anything to do with the content that was supposed to target the hardcore players or placating their demand for hard content. , much like it was bad design to not have an LFM system, and a bad design with how they first put in fractals.

Wait, did they actually intend people to replay Story Mode? WHY? It doesn't offer anything for clearing it a second or third time. It's only there for the story content and to unlock the Explorable modes.

@"Feanor.2358" said:

It goes without saying there's always room for improvement. But I think the vast majority of the criticism is very misdirected. The changes proposed often outright do not work, or would backfire horribly (like in the case of homogenizing rewards by removing their exclusivity). You can see me supporting a particular idea occasionally. Like for instance I'll agree immediately with a criticism against Serpent's Ire. The event is annoying and could use some tuning. When I oppose something, it's never "because devs said so".

What I've learned in receiving feedback is, the customer is often wrong, but that don't mean he shouldn't be listened to. By that I mean, plenty of times the solution he proposes will not work, or fixing the problem he highlights might be more work than it would be worth, but when that's the case, you explain it, because even if he doesn't know why it doesn't/wouldn't work that way, he has an issue that matters to him, and it's important to try and figure out a way to resolve that matter as best it can be, especially if there's reason to believe that many other people would feel the same way or would benefit from the result. If you get the same feedback many times from many different people, it might be worth considering, and this is a topic that keeps coming up (usually not from me).

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:This thread is about raids. However, the demand for easier versions raises another interesting question. If raid content presentation is to be altered, the only reason to do so would be to cater to the desires of people who want them at a lower difficulty point and have no interest in working into the existing raids. The question, then, is why is this demographic special?

Because there are a lot more of them than raiders?

Why not present all content at differing tiers of difficulty? After all, that would be the fair thing. Why easy raids, but no hard open world bosses, hard Living and XPac story, and hard mode for open world?

There are hard mode versions of many other contents, like story missions, Fractals, etc. The reason "why" in this case is because it's considered to be more challenging than the other content in the game, making the barrier of entry higher. Most other content in the game has an even difficulty curve, if you can complete some of it, you can complete most of it, which means that if a player plays any of the game, they can be comfortable in almost all of it.

Heck, why not hard mode raids? One thing I find interesting in the poll was that the number of people whose opinion was, "We need an easy but not a hard mode for raids." (59) is the same as those whose opinion was, "We need a hard but not an easy mode for raids." (59). An almost exact number (60) chose, "Raids have problems, but we need a better solution."

I was one of those "easy, but not hard." It's not that I oppose a hard mode, I just don't see it as necessary, since the existing mode is plenty hard. If they felt compelled to add one, I wouldn't insist otherwise, I just don't see it as being as important as adding an easy mode to increase accessibility. It's like if you have a building, and it has steps leading to the doorway, and someone suggests adding a ramp, and another person suggests adding a rock wall leading into the second floor, ok, maybe they can do both, but is the rock wall really as high a priority? I don't know.

[maddoctor.2738]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Actually they have made a ton changes to fractals over the time (see patch notes) to make them more accessible, then in addition they were not balanced for full ascended gear etc etc so that's another source of scaling down of difficulty(henc now people solo some of them), then the potions became easier to gain, and so on and so forth. Its actually a really good point, Fractals is a great template and evidence of the benefits of having looser tuned instances.

Yes after Heart of Thorns mostly. Fractals were designed to be done with masterwork gear in sub-80 characters at the lower levels. You are upscaled for crying out loud.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:I think I'm not caring. I'm just saying what I believe about the data presented, I make no quarrel with individuals.There was an argument about sales showing that when the content was easy, there was more revenue, which is objectively false if you actually check the data.

If your benchmark is "they've done some instanced content," those are reasonably large pools to use as the start of a wide end.Yes more people have done low tier fractals. Maybe it's because it has daily and precursor achievements? Ever thought of that? Not because the content itself, or how you say it usually, not because they enjoy it.

The only correct answer is "I don't know." I believe that it is a significant portion of the population, not hardcore, but casual instance runners, but I have no more way of knowing the actual figure than you do, which in both cases would be "not at all."So it could really be real tiny and that's why the Raids are the way they are, right?

[Ohoni.6057]

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Yes more people have done low tier fractals. Maybe it's because it has daily and precursor achievements? Ever thought of that? Not because the content itself, or how you say it usually, not because they enjoy it.

Ok, but that's sort of moving the goalposts. Easy raids could have dailies too, and would have other rewards to attract people. The point is, more people were at least "willing" to do easy Fractals than were willing and able to do raids, by something like five to one (within this sample pool). Whether they actually enjoyed it? Who can say based on that sort of data. You'd have to ask.

So it could really be real tiny and that's why the Raids are the way they are, right?

Always possible, I just don't see that as the most likely answer. It could equally likely be an extremely large percentage of the players. No way of knowing without polling the players.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:

It goes without saying there's always room for improvement. But I think the vast majority of the criticism is very misdirected. The changes proposed often outright do not work, or would backfire horribly (like in the case of homogenizing rewards by removing their exclusivity). You can see me supporting a particular idea occasionally. Like for instance I'll agree immediately with a criticism against Serpent's Ire. The event is annoying and could use some tuning. When I oppose something, it's never "because devs said so".

What I've learned in receiving feedback is, the customer is often wrong, but that don't mean he shouldn't be listened to. By that I mean, plenty of times the solution he proposes will not work, or fixing the problem he highlights might be more work than it would be worth, but when that's the case, you

explain it,

because even if he doesn't know why it doesn't/wouldn't work that way, he has an issue that matters

to him,

and it's important to try and figure out a way to resolve that matter as best it can be, especially if there's reason to believe that many other people would feel the same way or would benefit from the result. If you get the same feedback many times from many different people, it might be worth considering, and this is a topic that keeps coming up (usually not from me).

Oh, I've explained it over and over and over. It's not my problem you don't want to accept my reasons. The fact still stands that my explanations are in agreement with the observed reality of the game while your requests aren't.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Actually it has, you've been called out on this by multiple people.

I

have

been called out on this by multiple people,

and every single one of them was wrong

. That shouldn't need explaining. They would like me to shut up, because they disagree with my position on the matter, so they insist that it's purely self-serving, when I've turned down numerous offers to benefit myself without helping others in the process. Would I benefit from an easy mode? Yes. Would I accept

just

collecting the personal benefits of it if it didn't mean a systemic change that would benefit everyone? NO. This is not about me, no matter how many "multiple people" want to assert that it is.

This right here, it's called arrogance, look it up:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

arrogance (according to merriam-webster):

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

There is a difference between sticking to your opinion and calling every one else stupid when you have provided 0 data, have 0 credibility in the field of discussion and have very clear personal motives.

But they also have 0 data, 0 credibility and very clear personal motives, so that's a wash. If I'm arrogant then so are they, they're just pushing their agenda of gate keeping their game mode from the plebes, using whatever pseudoscience they can latch onto.

Oh absolutely I fully agree with you here, everybody in this thread unless proven otherwise has the same amount of qualification (or lack thereof). Here is the main difference though:

• calling arguments with data (no matter how reasonable or flawed) or at least attempts at rational debate pseudoscience tells a lot more about your state of mind then the people you are referring to. The vocabulary we use and how we use it almost always tells more about ourselves then the people we are referring to
• semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges, that's in this case you and people who want change. Funny enough, this entire discussion has mostly had people defending raids try to bring proof which has this entire debate twisted.
• you are trying to convince people of your view on this topic (unless you simply enjoy the back and forth). People in general do not like to be called stupid (even if they might be in specific cases) thus using extreme language is not likely to move anyone.
• since we are all equally unqualified same rules apply to all and you can't claim moral, intellectual or better reason than any one else (and/or ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself)

That's where often you come across differently than others, though I will admit that I read opposing views in this topic more attentive than agreeable ones and I'm sure other posters (and even myself from time to time) to have been at fault of the above mentioned things.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Always possible, I just don't see that as the most likely answer. It could equally likely be an extremely large percentage of the players. No way of knowing without polling the players.I'm sure you can understand that with "equally likely" there can't be a meaningful discussion anymore, since neither side has a way of proving their own likelihood. So, we reach this point where we don't know until we get an in-game poll. Time to end this thread until we get said poll (if we ever get it)?

[Kilamanjaro.2705]

I don't care anymore, in 86 pages i have finally been convinced, I just don't give a kitten. if they do they do and if they don't they don't AND I'LL GO RIGHT ON PLAYING WITH A SMILE AND A COKE

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:Oh, I've explained it over and over and over. It's not my problem you don't want to accept my reasons.

You aren't a dev on this game. You've given vague explanations as to what might be an issue, I'd like to hear what their reasoning are. What they would want to do, why they aren't doing it, etc.

The fact still stands that my explanations are in agreement with the observed reality of the game while your requests aren't.

You mean like the people asking for Raids in 2013, or Mounts in 2015?

@"Cyninja.2954" said:calling arguments with data (no matter how reasonable or flawed) or at least attempts at rational debate pseudoscience tells a lot more about your state of mind then the people you are referring to. The vocabulary we use and how we use it almost always tells more about ourselves then the people we are referring to

But it IS bad data and pseudoscience! I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but if they attempt to support that disagreement with "data" then I will hold them accountable to scrutiny. Attempting to recklessly throw numbers at the problem is either deliberately misleading or just foolishly misleading, and I'm going to call out either.

semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges, that's in this case you and people who want change.

I'm not making any statements of fact though. I'm stating my opinions, my beliefs, I believe they're rational, accept them or don't, your business. I don't believe proof can be provided on either side of this topic, so I make no attempt to provide any, and debunk any attempt to fabricate any.

you are trying to convince people of your view on this topic (unless you simply enjoy the back and forth). People in general do not like to be called stupid (even if they might be in specific cases) thus using extreme language is not likely to move anyone.

Be that as may.

since we are all equally unqualified same rules apply to all and you can't claim moral, intellectual or better reason than any one else (and/or ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself)

I make no such claims beyond that which is self-evident.

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Always possible, I just don't see that as the most likely answer. It could equally likely be an extremely large percentage of the players. No way of knowing without polling the players.I'm sure you can understand that with "equally likely" there can't be a meaningful discussion anymore, since neither side has a way of proving their own likelihood. So, we reach this point where we don't know until we get an in-game poll. Time to end this thread until we get said poll (if we ever get it)?

Which is my point, that's where we've always been on that point.

Time to end this thread until we get said poll (if we ever get it)?

Depends on whether anyone has anything to discuss. This topic has never been about absolutely quantifying the number of players who do or do not want easy mode. Not counting that it merged a half-dozen other threads on the subject, it's been about discussing potential easy modes or hard modes, across whatever details that might involve. The thread ends when nobody has anything to say.

And then someone will start another thread, because this si a topic that won't die until after easy mode raids have been announced.

[gonandro.4768]

Are raids too hard for you?: find a group, SUCK at raids, die a lot, and eventually you'll learn and acutally enjoy them; trust me, It worked for me.Are raids too easy for you?: Step out of the meta, do CM'S with new and original comps, do 6-7 man raids. whatever.

Sheesh, anet you've spoiled your players too much. leave them just like that you've done a pretty nice job.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:Oh, I've explained it over and over and over. It's not my problem you don't want to accept my reasons.

You aren't a dev on this game. You've given vague explanations as to what

might

be an issue, I'd like to hear what

their

reasoning are. What they would want to do, why they aren't doing it, etc.

Occam's Razor bro. I don't claim that I'm right. But my explanations are simple and they don't contradict the observed reality. Meanwhile all you offer is empty claims at how games are supposed to be according to your own imagination.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:But my explanations are simple and they don't contradict the observed reality.

Same here.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:calling arguments with data (no matter how reasonable or flawed) or at least attempts at rational debate pseudoscience tells a lot more about your state of mind then the people you are referring to. The vocabulary we use and how we use it almost always tells more about ourselves then the people we are referring to

But it IS bad data and pseudoscience! I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but if they attempt to

support

that disagreement with "data" then I will hold them accountable to scrutiny. Attempting to recklessly throw numbers at the problem is either deliberately misleading or just foolishly misleading, and I'm going to call out either.

Fair enough, and while "trying" or "aiming to" means diddly squat in an actual scientific debate, it sure shows a lot more effort from one side. You are free to disagree as much as you want, credibility comes from providing contrary data though, not just nitpicking.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges, that's in this case you and people who want change.

I'm not making any statements of fact though. I'm stating my opinions, my beliefs, I believe they're rational, accept them or don't, your business. I don't believe proof can be provided on either side of this topic, so I make no attempt to provide any, and debunk any attempt to fabricate any.

I think everyone can agree here you are voicing your opinions and beliefs. As mentioned above, debunking requires a minimum of engagement in the way of contrary data and more than hear say.

But yes, we can agree on both sides mostly stating opinions and beliefs, which are no basis on which a developer should or has to act. Which makes the entire debate about easy or no raids useless since if we are all stating beliefs and opinions and the developers have a superior set of both experience, data and design there is no way one should or can challenge their decision.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:you are trying to convince people of your view on this topic (unless you simply enjoy the back and forth). People in general do not like to be called stupid (even if they might be in specific cases) thus using extreme language is not likely to move anyone.

Be that as may.

since we are all equally unqualified same rules apply to all and you can't claim moral, intellectual or better reason than any one else (and/or ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself)

I make no such claims beyond that which is self-evident.

Yet you define the self-evident and debunk other people very rational claims, again with merely stating "I believe thus it must be true". Which is fine, but don't expect people to not call you out on it.

[nia.4725]

@gonandro.4768 said:Are raids too hard for you?: find a group, SUCK at raids, die a lot, and eventually you'll learn and acutally enjoy them; trust me, It worked for me.Are raids too easy for you?: Step out of the meta, do CM'S with new and original comps, do 6-7 man raids. whatever.

Sheesh, anet you've spoiled your players too much. leave them just like that you've done a pretty nice job.

I can imagine anet devs laughing and eating popcorn, watching us arguing endlessly and stupidly about things they do have completely decided... If they even read it still, because honestly, after so many pages and so many repetition I think they must be very bored of this topic.

[Cyninja.2954]

@nia.4725 said:

@gonandro.4768 said:Are raids too hard for you?: find a group, SUCK at raids, die a lot, and eventually you'll learn and acutally enjoy them; trust me, It worked for me.Are raids too easy for you?: Step out of the meta, do CM'S with new and original comps, do 6-7 man raids. whatever.

Sheesh, anet you've spoiled your players too much. leave them just like that you've done a pretty nice job.

I can imagine anet devs laughing and eating popcorn, watching us arguing endlessly and stupidly about things they do have completely decided... If they even read it still, because honestly, after so many pages and so many repetition I think they must be very bored of this topic.

I doubt they actually do read this. Certainly not the 10th back and forth which has happened by now. I do believe they are keeping an eye on player activity for the game mode and are making decisions based on their sets of data.

In the grand scheme of things though, raids are made by a small team (which are doing an amazing job for their supposed size) and in the day to day and overall game design raids probably don't take up a very significant chunk of time. Not like say living world episodes or a possible next expansion. Which will likely have the major chunk of work dedicated to them.

Besides the artists and designers working on monetization skins for the Black Lion Store because money needs to come in from some where even if some people believe that their paltry couple of euros/dollers a few years back have provided the developers with huge bags of cash.

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Astralporing.1957" said:Indeed, i doubt anyone that would not have been interested in earlier instanced content would be interested in easy mode raids.So since the data show a very low turn out for instanced contentIt doesn't.

Dhuum

is low turnout. Dungeons in general weren't.

... and this time you can't say about dungeon completion and individual paths, because this easy mode won't be added to farm Vale Guardian alone right?No, it won't. So? Think about the difference in numbers between VG and dhuum. That's your potential population for dhuum easy mode right there.

Do the words "Ascalonian Catacombs" ring a bell?The FIRST dungeon of the game? The dungeon that you can solo? No I only check Arah and maybe Honor of the Waves and Crucible of Eternity.And then you compare Arah with VG, instead of comparing AC with VG and Arah with

Dhuum

. Figures.

Do you think those that have no desire whatsoever to run the other instanced content, will for some reason like easy mode Raids?No.Exactly what I wanted to read.But the part you

didn't

want to read you ignored, right?

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Fair enough, and while "trying" or "aiming to" means diddly squat in an actual scientific debate, it sure shows a lot more effort from one side.

I prefer deliberate honestly to reckless effort. Better to take a single step in the right direction than ten steps in the opposite one. Just because someone is willing to throw chaff at a topic doesn't mean that they are somehow more worthwhile than someone who just sticks to the truth.

You are free to disagree as much as you want, credibility comes from providing contrary data though, not just nitpicking.

I can't speak for how you choose to parse the news, but overall that's a terrible philosophy. Pointing out faulty data should be considered as important as providing new data, either one is bringing the discussion closer to the truth.

You keep implying that I should be providing more "data" than I have been. I've pointed out why neither side in this discussion is capable of presenting valid data, so why do you keep arguing the point? What data do you believe I could provide?

As mentioned above, debunking requires a minimum of engagement in the way of contrary data and more than hear say.

Nope. Debunking sometimes merely requires pointing out that the other person's data collection is bunk.

But yes, we can agree on both sides mostly stating opinions and beliefs, which are no basis on which a developer should or has to act.

No, again, developers should consider opinions and beliefs, they are producing an entertainment product, after all, there's nothing "objective" about it. Now they should collect as broad a spectrum as possible of opinions, but their business is built on opinions.

Yet you define the self-evident and debunk other people very rational claims, again with merely stating "I believe thus it must be true". Which is fine, but don't expect people to not call you out on it.

That's your opinion, which I assure you I value as much as you value mine.

[nia.4725]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@"gonandro.4768" said:Are raids too hard for you?: find a group, SUCK at raids, die a lot, and eventually you'll learn and acutally enjoy them; trust me, It worked for me.Are raids too easy for you?: Step out of the meta, do CM'S with new and original comps, do 6-7 man raids. whatever.

Sheesh, anet you've spoiled your players too much. leave them just like that you've done a pretty nice job.

I can imagine anet devs laughing and eating popcorn, watching us arguing endlessly and stupidly about things they do have completely decided... If they even read it still, because honestly, after so many pages and so many repetition I think they must be very bored of this topic.

I doubt they actually do read this. Certainly not the 10th back and forth which has happened by now. I do believe they are keeping an eye on player activity for the game mode and are making decisions based on their sets of data.

In the grand scheme of things though, raids are made by a small team (which are doing an amazing job for their supposed size) and in the day to day and overall game design raids probably don't take up a very significant chunk of time. Not like say living world episodes or a possible next expansion. Which will likely have the major chunk of work dedicated to them.

Besides the artists and designers working on monetization skins for the Black Lion Store because money needs to come in from some where even if some people believe that their paltry couple of euros/dollers a few years back have provided the developers with huge bags of cash.

I hope so. Whether they add an easy mode or not, I expect that decision to be made based on the actual numbers and the actual state of raids, not on some people's cries on a forum. They know much better than all of us, this thread is just nonsense from head to toe. We can't provide proof on anything, we can't "negotiate" like we are able to get a change in the game and the poll of this thread does not mean anything from neither side of the discussion. So... ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I do not expect raids team to be bigger, and I'm okay with a raid every 6 months more or less. I don't want raids to become the new fractals where you pick some and do them like they're nothing. The first time I've become bored while raiding was two days ago, when I had already done almost 2 fullclears, and I felt the need to have some more bosses : / I completely understand, and I agree, that the big chunk of resources must be given to open world/living world. I'm happy with my small raid team releasing content when they can, the only thing I'd like to have is a raid balance team that understands how classes are used in raids and what is needed to balance them.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Astralporing.1957 said:And then you compare Arah with VG, instead of comparing AC with VG and Arah with Dhuum. Figures.Why would I do that? AC is level 35 content, doable solo easily, you can out-gear and out-level it. VG and Dhuum are both not solo friendly at all. Arah isn't solo friendly either (doable but not very easy). I'm comparing things that are similar, in at least some way. You want me to compare something SOLO with group content, why would I ever do that, unless this easy mode for Raids is going to be a solo experience too. Then yes your comparison does sound appropriate, but is it going to be SOLO content?