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

[Astralporing.1957]

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@"STIHL.2489" said:

Not true at all. I get that many

hardcore

parrot this, but.. the main problem with dungeons had nothing to do with the difficulty of the explorer mode.

Dungeons were not well designed in regards to the actual capabilities of group play with proper stats. Every single dungeon in the game, every single explorable path, had devolved into corner stacking and instantly zerging down bosses. The end bosses of AC will all die in less than 10 seconds with a decent group. I remember Path 3 and the excruciatingly boring part where you have to destroy all the Graveling Burrows and they'd instantly die and you're just waiting around doing nothing waiting for the next one to spawn. Lupicus, designed to be the single hardest boss in the game boiled down to a 40 second encounter. They were a joke.

By 2013 pretty much everyone had done dungeons and gotten what they wanted from them. Right now 44% of accounts on GW2 statistics have the AC Greatsword alone.

They had plenty of traffic because they were good gold, but they were incredibly boring and effortless with decent players. Dungeons got nuked as a concept because they were

trivial

. Arenanet saw how players were handling dungeons and decided building up Fractals of the Mists and Raids as end game content and abandoning dungeons would be the better strategy. They were right. Because "Stack in Corner, cleave enemies down, repeat ad nauseum" is not the sort of thing you want to be broadcasting to the world as your end game content.You didn't really follow the dungeon history, i see. The main reason why dungeons were abandoned and fractals got promoted had nothing to do with it, but was a result of a lot of messy coding (that was somewhat understood only by people that wrote it, that happened to

not

be working for anet anymore) in the former, and a more robust coding backbone of the latter.

They abandoned the dungeons because they didn't want to have to rewrite them from ground up, nor deal with the messy code to remove even the most visible bugs. It had nothing to do with their difficulty level. In fact, had they been more challenging (and thus less popular), they'd likely end up abandoned even faster.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:You posed your statement as if it was self evident, it shouldn't be difficult for you to explain it. Why do

you

believe that a solo experience should

never

be worthy of anything more than "two champion bags, five loot bags and 25 volatile magic as a reward, not legendary armor?"

That's not what I said. You can't win an argument with strawmen, and you won't win your legendary armor by arguing on the forums. Stop lying to yourself.

That doesn't answer the question. You said "Of course, you're not interested in a solo experience, because that means that would come with two champion bags, five loot bags and 25 volatile magic as a reward, not legendary armor."

Simple logic dictates that if that statement is to be taken at face value, then it would inevitably flow that "a solo experience could never come with more than two champion bags, five loot bags and 25 volatile magic as a reward, not legendary armor." That is not a strawman, that is the point you made, whether you regret that or not. I am asking you why you believe that is true, or to give you the opportunity to correct the record.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Why? Again, serious question. Doubly "why" actually, why do you believe group content is more challenging, and why do you believe that greater challenge must equal greater reward?

Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content easier, not harder, and therefore less deserving of individual rewards.

In order to avoid trivializing, group content needs to be harder.

Sure, but if you scale the content to meet the capabilities of the group, that does not raise the difficulty for individual members, so again, the individual members deserve no more reward.

If you have an enemy that is at a "10" difficulty, and an individual player is expected to be "10" level skill to beat him, and then you add four more 10 players, they would have a combined power of 50, and obviously would crush the 10 enemy, making him easier. If you then scale that enemy up to 50, he would be a tougher enemy than the 10 enemy, but relative to the new combined power of the team, he would still be 1:1, 50:10x5, no change there, no increased worthiness.

The argument you make here would only apply to a game with split loot, where a "group class" mob would need to drop loot that could be fairly split among five players, it doesn't apply to one where each player gets their fair share.

Second - because not doing results in a game where everyone goes the path of least resistance and gets bored in few weeks, tops.

Ok, but what if you balance the path of least resistance? You've made a valid point here, if I can lift 10lb. onto a shelf and get $1, or 50lb. onto a shelf and make $1, I'll lift 10lb., obviously.

But what if lifting the 50lb. weight offered $5? Then that's balanced, I could lift 5 10lb.s or one 50lb.s, and get the same reward, and which one is more worth my time is up to me. If 50lb. is no sweat for me, then that's the best deal, since it's one simple action that I can do in a fraction of the time. If 50lb. is a lot of weight for me, 5x10lb. will take a bit more time, but it's at least doable for me. It's a fair deal, it works out for both types of person, and gives players choice.

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight. And yet, as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have an option. It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them, they can still reach their goal eventually.

It's more than fair for the 50lb. people, makes that by far "the path of least resistance," but it does give other players a choice in the matter.

Why is that a bad thing?

@NotOverlyCheesy.9427 said:If you've read about philosophy of fairness then you'd know why. If you work more/harder you deserve more and if you work less/easier you deserve less.

But what if you work easier x more verses if you work harder x less? Shouldn't a lot of small things potentially add up to be equal to a much smaller amount of big things? Shouldn't 100 coppers add up to a silver?

[Brynioch.1873]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Siegy.7092 said:I enjoy coming back to this thread every once in a while, even having some snacks while reading it. The amount of entitlement and cheap agendas here are cringeworthy at best. With the amount of time and energy that some spent writing and arguing here most would have already learned all encounters and gotten their Envoy armors on 2 characters. If you want something, work hard for it and stop making silly demands and blaming others for your own limitations, lazyness and incompetence.

Its opinions like this that gives raiders a bad name unfortunately with their 'must be lazy blah blah' attitude. The majority of players are actually adults with many years experience playing mmorpg including raids and have good reasons for not having the time to devote large timeblocks to a game and want raiding in the style you get on every other AAA mmorpg out there. This is 2018, not 2005.

That's the reason we get small raids that take around 20-30 min to complete with an decent group. No need for large timeblocks. Nobody forces you to clear all 5 wings in one sitting.

You still didn't answer how raids evolved and what's that 'more' is they could be.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content

easier,

not harder, and therefore

less

deserving of individual rewards.

So interactions with boss abilities between players (eg Dhuum shackles) and building a proper group to cover all important things like boons, tank, reflect is easier than playing solo content? Really?

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Miellyn.6847" said:So interactions with boss abilities between players (eg Dhuum shackles) and building a proper group to cover all important things like boons, tank, reflect is easier than playing solo content? Really?

I was talking to Feanor, I was responding to the point he'd made. My response was accurate to the point he'd made.

As you your point, "building a correct group" is a logistical hassle, not a gameplay challenge. Anyone can do it, it just takes time and sometimes cost that many players don't want to deal with. Other than that, the mechanics are the mechanics. It's not more challenging to the individual to complete those challenges when in a group than it is to complete them when you are solo.

[Sarrs.4831]

@Ohoni.6057 said:That doesn't answer the question.

You're being purposely obtuse. I've already told you that it's a strawman. Stop trying to tell me that I believe something that I don't, I know the playbook and I'm not stupid enough to take the bait.

[yann.1946]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:That doesn't answer the question.

You're being purposely obtuse. I've already told you that it's a strawman. Stop trying to tell me that I believe something that I don't, I know the playbook and I'm not stupid enough to take the bait.

In ohonis defence this was what you said. You where probably making a reference to the story missions but you're statement could have been much Clearer

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Miellyn.6847" said:So interactions with boss abilities between players (eg Dhuum shackles) and building a proper group to cover all important things like boons, tank, reflect is easier than playing solo content? Really?

I was talking to Feanor, I was responding to the point he'd made. My response was accurate to the point he'd made.

As you

your

point, "building a correct group" is a logistical hassle, not a gameplay challenge. Anyone can do it, it just takes time and sometimes cost that many players don't want to deal with. Other than that, the mechanics are the mechanics. It's not more challenging to the individual to complete those challenges when in a group than it is to complete them when you are solo.

Its generaly accepted that Matthias becomes easier after 40 if you are with 7 instead of 10

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Why? Again, serious question. Doubly "why" actually, why do you believe group content is more challenging, and why do you believe that greater challenge must equal greater reward?

Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content

easier,

not harder, and therefore

less

deserving of individual rewards.

Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Miellyn.6847" said:So interactions with boss abilities between players (eg Dhuum shackles) and building a proper group to cover all important things like boons, tank, reflect is easier than playing solo content? Really?

I was talking to Feanor, I was responding to the point he'd made. My response was accurate to the point he'd made.

As you

your

point, "building a correct group" is a logistical hassle, not a gameplay challenge. Anyone can do it, it just takes time and sometimes cost that many players don't want to deal with. Other than that, the mechanics are the mechanics. It's not more challenging to the individual to complete those challenges when in a group than it is to complete them when you are solo.

I will not disagree here though I believe you are leaving out certain things specifically in regards to how group content in GW2 works and is rewarded.

First off, having a group of people and appropriate content for said group will at face value be more challenging if designed with having a group and different roles in mind. That's logical because you now have to cover multiple bases, in this case specific boss encounter roles, boons, tank, healing, damage, etc.

This does not mean that the difficulty is similar across all players in that group which alone goes to show that difficulty is also based on how much responsibility you have to manage. Simply running along as damage dealer or heal bot without extra duties will certainly not be very challenging.

A solo challenge can be more difficult than group content by merely increasing the amount of responsibility or work the player has to do, similar to how different classes/roles in raids are taxed differently. Unfortunately since you do not have the complexity and interaction of multiple players and classes, the design to surpass this means that the encounter would have to be even harder on the individual compared to current raid difficulty if the goal is to create more difficult solo content.

There was content like this in the past when the Queen's Gauntlet was active. In order to make content difficult enough on a solo player now though, imagine taking the Queen's Gauntlet fights and upping that difficulty by factor 5 or even more.

• Could it be done? Sure.
• Would a lot of players be able to complete it? Absolutely not.
• Would this help get a lot more people into legendary armor? Very doubtful if the difficulty is higher than raids, but possible for very specific cases where a player is skilled enough but does not want to play in a group.
• Does this provide an extra alternative to players? Yes, and brings along a ton of new problems like people complaining about the difficulty and again being locked out of rewards but in this case being effectively told:"You are to bad at this game and do not deserve these rewards."

On the topic of rewards:Solo rewards and easily farm-able rewards are low in value by simple design choice and market balance. If you could do easy solo tasks and get a higher return than say world bosses, the open world pve game would die out. Is there variance in rewards? Sure, Arenanet has made it progressively easier to get ones first set of ascended gear and weapons. They've also increased the amount of ascended/exotic gear one needs per character with introduction of different roles, builds, etc. thus counter balancing the first aspect.

It is foolish to believe that any implementation of pve solo-able legendary armor would be in any way easier than raid legendary armor. At best it would rival time and effort to get as spvp and wvw armor but likely be even more work than those because both of those are implemented with a desire to push people into those game modes (and do not provide the unique skins). A realistic assumption for solo pve legendary armor would be something like heavy gating beyond 6 months and an approximate gold effort of 7-10k and I'm not even sure they would give these armor the raid unique skin.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:That doesn't answer the question.

You're being purposely obtuse. I've already told you that it's a strawman. Stop trying to tell me that I believe something that I don't, I know the playbook and I'm not stupid enough to take the bait.

I repeated the exact words you said. It's not a strawman just because you regret saying what you did. I guess I'll have to take this as an apology.

@yann.1946 said:Its generaly accepted that Matthias becomes easier after 40 if you are with 7 instead of 10

That's interesting, why so, exactly? Less randomization in targeting, or less chaotic battlefield? I don't dispute that in this instance it would be the case, but is that because there are more people, or because the mechanics were designed to function that way? What I mean is, if 7 is better than 10, couldn't the developers have instead designed the mechanics to be equally as disruptive to 7 players as it currently is to 10? And by extension, couldn't they have made it as disruptive to one player as to 10? It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right?

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Why? Again, serious question. Doubly "why" actually, why do you believe group content is more challenging, and why do you believe that greater challenge must equal greater reward?

Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content

easier,

not harder, and therefore

less

deserving of individual rewards.

Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate.

Ok, except that I wasn't taking anything out of context. I left the full text of your statement in, I was just taking it point by point. If that was unclear, I could summarize how the points I made add up to directly address the summation of your argument, but I'd assumed that was already clear.

@"Cyninja.2954" said:First off, having a group of people and appropriate content for said group will at face value be more challenging if designed with having a group and different roles in mind. That's logical because you now have to cover multiple bases, in this case specific boss encounter roles, boons, tank, healing, damage, etc.

This does not mean that the difficulty is similar across all players in that group which alone goes to show that difficulty is also based on how much responsibility you have to manage. Simply running along as damage dealer or heal bot without extra duties will certainly not be very challenging.

Be assured that I read your entire statement, and am addressing it in its entirety, but I clipped out a portion to quote in the sake of brevity. I get what you mean here, but think of it another way, if a group is meant to tackle multiple roles, and each person in that group only has to follow that one role, and that one role is relatively simple when compared to the sum total of it's mechanics, then why, in a solo version, would a single player be expected to cover multiple mechanics? That's an unreasonable escalation of duty, right?

Like imagine if VG were made into a solo encounter (which, for the record, I am not advocating). Well what if the role they gave to the solo player was the tank? What if he had to do nothing other than to draw the enemy around at the appropriate timing, dealing as much damage as he can manage? All other mechanics of the fight would take care of themselves, just as they would if a capable group were performing them. Maybe sometimes those mechanics would blow up, just as when a group makes mistakes, forcing the player tank to adapt. My point is, an AI could fill the rest of those mechanics, or they could be removed completely.

Or say that the player was meant to fill a more general DPS role. The enemy would circle the ring as if being led by a capable tank, the player would try to attack him as often as possible, while soloing as many green circles as possible, avoiding the blue ones that would slow DPS, etc. He would be responsible for clearing the mechanics and dealing the DPS expected of a single player in a balanced team, and anything that couldn't reasonably be juggled would be taken care of.

We're just speaking in the abstract here, again, not advocating for anything ANet should be doing.

But in that scenario, to that player, his encounter would be no easier or harder than a player playing in a well coordinated team, he would still need to do his tasks just as well to clear it.

Solo rewards and easily farm-able rewards are low in value by simple design choice and market balance. If you could do easy solo tasks and get a higher return than say world bosses, the open world pve game would die out. Is there variance in rewards? Sure, Arenanet has made it progressively easier to get ones first set of ascended gear and weapons. They've also increased the amount of ascended/exotic gear one needs per character with introduction of different roles, builds, etc. thus counter balancing the first aspect.

Ok, but what about my earlier examples with the weights? I acknowledge the value in bribing players into doing group activities to make sure that there's a market for such things, but how high does that bribe actually need to be? Does it absolutely need to be exclusive access to certain rewards, or would it be sufficient to instead just offer them more rewards than for the solo variation? So long as the "encouraged" activity offers multiple times as much "gold" as the solo activity for the same unit of time, does it really need to be a completely distinct reward that could never be acquired any other way? At what point does greedy become too greedy?

It is foolish to believe that any implementation of pve solo-able legendary armor would be in any way easier than raid legendary armor.

I would fully expect it to take more dedication. I don't know that it would take higher challenge. It would be disappointing if it did.

At best it would rival time and effort to get as spvp and wvw armor but likely be even more work than those because both of those are implemented with a desire to push people into those game modes (and do not provide the unique skins).

I believed that they were there so that people who liked PvP and WvW didn't have to leave. I do not think it's a good idea for them to be used to draw players, because those players would not necessarily enjoy the experience. I've explained my stance on that sort of thing.

A realistic assumption for solo pve legendary armor would be something like heavy gating beyond 6 months and an approximate gold effort of 7-10k and I'm not even sure they would give these armor the raid unique skin.

Yeah, maybe. Still, better than raiding, right?

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:A realistic assumption for solo pve legendary armor would be something like heavy gating beyond 6 months and an approximate gold effort of 7-10k and I'm not even sure they would give these armor the raid unique skin.

Yeah, maybe. Still, better than raiding, right?

Sure, I've been very open about absolutely being in favor or more ways to acquire legendary armor as long as it does not come as a detriment to the over all game or different game modes, I believe I said so in the very beginning when rejoining the discussion.

Then again I personally enjoy raiding so to me it would be simply something to work towards if it had a new skin or so.

[nia.4725]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@yann.1946 said:Its generaly accepted that Matthias becomes easier after 40 if you are with 7 instead of 10

That's interesting, why so, exactly? Less randomization in targeting, or less chaotic battlefield? I don't dispute that in this instance it would be the case, but is that because there are more people, or because the mechanics were designed to function that way? What I mean is, if 7 is better than 10, couldn't the developers have instead designed the mechanics to be equally as disruptive to 7 players as it currently is to 10? And by extension, couldn't they have made it as disruptive to one player as to 10? It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right?

Well honestly, I don't get why Yann said that. I have never seen anyone say anything similar and I have never considered 40% Matt to be easier with less people. Mechanics in Matthias are punishing, getting downed is fairly easy if you don't pay enough attention and the thing is that it's very easy having a downed snowball effect when 1 player gets downed.

Having 7 people could make things easier for healers, since they have less people to take care of. But at the same time, getting several players downed is far more dangerous when you're less people. It makes you closer to a wipe. It's true tho what you ask, Ohoni: less randomization of bomb/poison/corruption targets and more space to move. But that does not mean Matt should have been made for less people. In my opinion, this is part of the challenge: learning to position yourself and coordinate with your group so that there's space for everyone and every mechanic. Anet couldn't have made it differently, I mean, it's inevitable that the less people you have, the more often that people will be the target of any mechanic.

And about the last question... I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to make raid bosses solo content without changing their most basic characteristics. No solo player can do all Matthias mechanics. It would be impossible. To start with something, the sacrifice mechanic would need to be removed (1 player is sacrificed unless the other players break his cc bar). That is impossible to be soloable without a big change (Matthias gets a cc bar and if you don't break it, he kills you). But then again, a player can't have enough cc to break Matt's bar without the need to equip certain weapons or skill that would potentially prevent him from taking other necessary things, like a skill to deal with Matt's projectiles (feedback/wall of reflection/whatever). Etc etc etc. As you can see, it's very complex and kind of a messy thing to do, and definitely more than adjusting some skills and movement patterns. It would require a complete rework.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Why? Again, serious question. Doubly "why" actually, why do you believe group content is more challenging, and why do you believe that greater challenge must equal greater reward?

Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content

easier,

not harder, and therefore

less

deserving of individual rewards.

Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate.

Ok, except that I wasn't taking anything out of context. I left the full text of your statement in, I was just taking it point by point. If that was unclear, I could summarize how the points I made add up to directly address the summation of your argument, but I'd assumed that was already clear.

TIL stopping at the point where it suits you and inventing an arbitrary position for yourself to attack with arguments that are addressed in the very next sentence is called "talking it point by point". Yeah, right.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"nia.4725" said:Having 7 people could make things easier for healers, since they have less people to take care of. But at the same time, getting several players downed is far more dangerous when you're less people. It makes you closer to a wipe. It's true tho what you ask, Ohoni: less randomization of bomb/poison/corruption targets and more space to move. But that does not mean Matt should have been made for less people.

Right, like I said, at this point I'm not advocating for a change in this direction, I'm just exploring the philosophy of the thing. As you noted, when some people die, it can steamroll to all people dying, because the encounter is designed to have a certain number of active players. My point is, the same could be achieved using RNG, if you're "playing well" on a team where everyone else is dying left and right until only you are left, mechanically that's no different than you playing it well but then getting hit with unavoidable damage debuffs, basically. ;)

If the goal is to avoid stacking up too many mechanics, the same can be applied by them just randomly dropping damage fields in certain portions of the terrain. If they wanted it to be relatively easy, then the placement would be "fair." If they wanted it to be hard, reflecting the performance of a "bad party," then the placement would be hard to avoid.

And about the last question... I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to make raid bosses solo content without changing their most basic characteristics. No solo player can do all Matthias mechanics. It would be impossible.

Did you read my reply to Cyninja above? Basically I think any boss encounter could be rearranged so that the things the solo player would do would be comparable to all the tasks that a single member of a party would have to do. Obviously many raid encounters are designed so that a single player can't do all the things at once, but at any given time, each person in a raid squad is only doing one series of tasks and responsibilities, and you could juggle the mechanics of the fight to present a single player with that selection of tasks, and all other tasks just sort of handle themselves.

To start with something, the sacrifice mechanic would need to be removed (1 player is sacrificed unless the other players break his cc bar). That is impossible to be soloable without a big change (Matthias gets a cc bar and if you don't break it, he kills you).

Well, unless I miss my mark on this guess, couldn't you replicate that effect by having "shrines" or whatever on the map, and they are periodically "threatened," and if you fail to "save" that shrine within a time limit, then it is "destroyed," which drops your DPS potential by 1/10th? Wouldn't that have roughly the same impact, and require roughly the same player response? If the current mechanic forces you to choose between having the options to deal enough CC or the option to deal enough damage, the solo version would either have a lower CC curve or lower DPS requirements, forcing you to either play as a current team's "CC player," or as a current team's "dps player" or as a balance of the two.

It would require a complete rework.

Agreed, but my point is just that a rework would be possible that would have the same individual player responsibilities, but without the other players. Read the post above for a little more detail on that.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Why? Again, serious question. Doubly "why" actually, why do you believe group content is more challenging, and why do you believe that greater challenge must equal greater reward?

Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members.

True, which makes the content

easier,

not harder, and therefore

less

deserving of individual rewards.

Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate.

Ok, except that I wasn't taking anything out of context. I left the full text of your statement in, I was just taking it point by point. If that was unclear, I could summarize how the points I made add up to directly address the summation of your argument, but I'd assumed that was already clear.

TIL stopping at the point where it suits you and inventing an arbitrary position for yourself to attack with arguments that are addressed in the very next sentence is called "talking it point by point". Yeah, right.

And knowing is half the battle!

[yann.1946]

@nia.4725 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@yann.1946 said:Its generaly accepted that Matthias becomes easier after 40 if you are with 7 instead of 10

That's interesting, why so, exactly? Less randomization in targeting, or less chaotic battlefield? I don't dispute that in this instance it would be the case, but is that because there are more people, or because the mechanics were designed to function that way? What I mean is, if 7 is better than 10, couldn't the developers have instead designed the mechanics to be equally as disruptive to 7 players as it currently is to 10? And by extension, couldn't they have made it as disruptive to one player as to 10? It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right?

Well honestly, I don't get why Yann said that. I have never seen anyone say anything similar and I have never considered 40% Matt to be easier with less people. Mechanics in Matthias are punishing, getting downed is fairly easy if you don't pay enough attention and the thing is that it's very easy having a downed snowball effect when 1 player gets downed.

Having 7 people could make things easier for healers, since they have less people to take care of. But at the same time, getting several players downed is far more dangerous when you're less people. It makes you closer to a wipe. It's true tho what you ask, Ohoni: less randomization of bomb/poison/corruption targets and more space to move. But that does not mean Matt should have been made for less people. In my opinion, this is part of the challenge: learning to position yourself and coordinate with your group so that there's space for everyone and every mechanic. Anet couldn't have made it differently, I mean, it's inevitable that the less people you have, the more often that people will be the target of any mechanic.

And about the last question... I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to make raid bosses solo content without changing their most basic characteristics. No solo player can do all Matthias mechanics. It would be impossible. To start with something, the sacrifice mechanic would need to be removed (1 player is sacrificed unless the other players break his cc bar). That is impossible to be soloable without a big change (Matthias gets a cc bar and if you don't break it, he kills you). But then again, a player can't have enough cc to break Matt's bar without the need to equip certain weapons or skill that would potentially prevent him from taking other necessary things, like a skill to deal with Matt's projectiles (feedback/wall of reflection/whatever). Etc etc etc. As you can see, it's very complex and kind of a messy thing to do, and definitely more than adjusting some skills and movement patterns. It would require a complete rework.

We'll its that people don't have to move as much for the bomb phase. The healer as less people to heal. And if downs escalate the potential extra players wouldn't help most the time.

Ofcourse their's also that if you bleed players from 10 tot 7 naturly you lose the worse people on average.

[Sarrs.4831]

@Ohoni.6057 said:I repeated the exact words you said. It's not a strawman just because you regret saying what you did. I guess I'll have to take this as an apology.

I mean, if we're allowed to repeat the exact words someone says and create a new context for them, I'd like a turn.

@Ohoni.6057 said:want to be lazy and just grind easy mode

Exact words you said. Do you still stand by this position?

@"Feanor.2358" said:TIL stopping at the point where it suits you and inventing an arbitrary position for yourself to attack with arguments that are addressed in the very next sentence is called "talking it point by point". Yeah, right.

If he didn't take what people said out of context he'd have nothing to respond to.

[nia.4725]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"nia.4725" said:Having 7 people could make things easier for healers, since they have less people to take care of. But at the same time, getting several players downed is far more dangerous when you're less people. It makes you closer to a wipe. It's true tho what you ask, Ohoni: less randomization of bomb/poison/corruption targets and more space to move. But that does not mean Matt should have been made for less people.

Right, like I said, at this point I'm not advocating for a change in this direction, I'm just exploring the philosophy of the thing. As you noted, when some people die, it can steamroll to all people dying, because the encounter is designed to have a certain number of active players. My point is, the same could be achieved using RNG, if you're "playing well" on a team where everyone else is dying left and right until only you are left, mechanically that's no different than you playing it well but then getting hit with unavoidable damage debuffs, basically. ;)

If the goal is to avoid stacking up too many mechanics, the same can be applied by them just randomly dropping damage fields in certain portions of the terrain. If they wanted it to be relatively easy, then the placement would be "fair." If they wanted it to be hard, reflecting the performance of a "bad party," then the placement would be hard to avoid.

And about the last question... I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to make raid bosses solo content without changing their most basic characteristics. No solo player can do all Matthias mechanics. It would be impossible.

Did you read my reply to Cyninja above? Basically I think

any

boss encounter could be rearranged so that the things the solo player would do would be comparable to all the tasks that a

single

member of a party would have to do. Obviously many raid encounters are designed so that a single player can't do

all

the things at once, but at any given time, each person in a raid squad is only doing one series of tasks and responsibilities, and you

could

juggle the mechanics of the fight to present a single player with that

selection

of tasks, and all other tasks just sort of handle themselves.

To start with something, the sacrifice mechanic would need to be removed (1 player is sacrificed unless the other players break his cc bar). That is impossible to be soloable without a big change (Matthias gets a cc bar and if you don't break it, he kills you).

Well, unless I miss my mark on this guess, couldn't you replicate that effect by having "shrines" or whatever on the map, and they are periodically "threatened," and if you fail to "save" that shrine within a time limit, then it is "destroyed," which drops your DPS potential by 1/10th? Wouldn't that have roughly the same impact, and require roughly the same player response? If the current mechanic forces you to choose between having the options to deal enough CC

or

the option to deal enough damage, the solo version would either have a lower CC curve or lower DPS requirements, forcing you to either play as a current team's "CC player,"

or

as a current team's "dps player"

or

as a balance of the two.

It would require a complete rework.

Agreed, but my point is just that a rework would be

possible

that would have the same individual player responsibilities, but without the other players. Read the post above for a little more detail on that.

I read the post, Ohoni. I'm just answering to this "It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right?"

And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

1. A mechanic appears
2. Instead of doing the mechanic, the group ignores it and just keeps DPSing
3. That DPS increase derived from not having to move from the boss makes the boss phase
4. The mechanic from 1 gets canceled thanks to that extra DPS

This is a common tactic in raids. An example is Xera. Very often, the first 50% of the boss is done in the mid. No one moves, everyone ignores the red orbs because, if you DPS enough, the orbs get canceled. Win win. No one has to move, no one has to deal with mechanics, faster kill.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored. Your idea in fact is similar to Dhuum's greens, the difference is that if a green fails the player dies, and it's a potential wipe. I'm sure that, if a failed green did nothing more than reducing the DPS, greens would be ignored in favor of stacking and cleaving down the boss. Your shrine failing would need to be a big DPS loss if you want players to actually try to do the mechanic.

As you noted, when some people die, it can steamroll to all people dying, because the encounter is designed to have a certain number of active players.

My point didn't have anything to do with the encounter being designed to have a certain number of active player. Matthias does not require a specific number of players. My point was that, because of the nature of Matthias' mechanics, it's very easy to have several downed players once 1 gets downed. It's because of things like the hadouken, the tornadoes... the less people alive and capable of ressing, the more probability of needind healer roles to res, and more healers ressing means less healers actually healing those who are ressing, and that means that any damage taken won't be healed quickly, and that means a greater probability of getting downed while ressing.

Do you understand what I was saying now?

[mortrialus.3062]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight. And yet, as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have an option. It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them, they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

[Tyson.5160]

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

What about watching the 50 lbs for $40.00 and then getting $20.00 after?

[TexZero.7910]

@"Tyson.5160" said:What about watching the 50 lbs for $40.00 and then getting $20.00 after?

What about just raiding if you want the Armor ?I think it's literally that simple. No need for bad analogies or metaphors.

If you do not want to raid, you're not getting the reward. Simple as that, no there's not going to be any budging on this as the developers have already confirmed Legendary Armor (Envoy) is for completing the current raids.

If that doesn't suit your need, your next best bet isn't coming to the forums it's playing PvP or WvW for their Legendary Armor. Complain that they lack "Legendary" visuals if you want they come with everything else that is "Legendary" stat swap/rune swap/particles and that sweet sweet purple font.

[Tyson.5160]

@TexZero.7910 said:

@"Tyson.5160" said:What about watching the 50 lbs for $40.00 and then getting $20.00 after?

What about just raiding if you want the Armor ?I think it's literally that simple. No need for bad analogies or metaphors.

If you do not want to raid, you're not getting the reward. Simple as that, no there's not going to be any budging on this as the developers have already confirmed Legendary Armor (Envoy) is for completing the current raids.

If that doesn't suit your need, your next best bet isn't coming to the forums it's playing PvP or WvW for their Legendary Armor. Complain that they lack "Legendary" visuals if you want they come with everything else that is "Legendary" stat swap/rune swap/particles and that sweet sweet purple font.

I already have Legendary Armor...

[Ohoni.6057]

@"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear?

In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so.

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of.

[Tyson.5160]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the

amount

of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be

possible

to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics

for him

as

he

would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear?

In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000

or

buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

Sure, but the point of it was to

replicate

the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction

could

be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so.

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that

none

of their efforts can

ever

possibly match up to what He is capable of.

I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist?

[Ohoni.6057]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the

amount

of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be

possible

to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics

for him

as

he

would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear?

In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000

or

buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

Sure, but the point of it was to

replicate

the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction

could

be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so.

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that

none

of their efforts can

ever

possibly match up to what He is capable of.

I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist?

Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same.

[mortrialus.3062]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the

amount

of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be

possible

to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics

for him

as

he

would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear?

In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000

or

buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

Sure, but the point of it was to

replicate

the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction

could

be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so.

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that

none

of their efforts can

ever

possibly match up to what He is capable of.

You can match my effort. By matching my effort. It's quite simple.

[Tyson.5160]

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"nia.4725" said:And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the

amount

of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be

possible

to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics

for him

as

he

would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear?

In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000

or

buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS.

About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this:

I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work.

And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored.

Sure, but the point of it was to

replicate

the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction

could

be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so.

@mortrialus.3062 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight.

And yet,

as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have

an option.

It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them,

they can still reach their goal eventually.

Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20.

And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that

none

of their efforts can

ever

possibly match up to what He is capable of.

You can match my effort. By matching my effort. It's quite simple.

So I take it your against the idea?