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

[STIHL.2489]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

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

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

But, you are only speaking for yourself.. No one else.

You are in no place to say how hard or the easy the game is for anyone else. If someone else says the game is to too hard and inaccessible, they are right as well, and you need to accept that.

Oh? And how is that my opinion matters less than theirs? It's precisely the same - personal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. One is not any more valid than the other, meaning neither can be used as a meaningful argument for anything.

When you Impose it on others.. is your opinion on the matter.. no longer matters.

I have no goal to take away your difficult raids, my goal is to

add

raids that are a lower skill level. So I am not imposing anything upon you, in fact I am expanding the game making it better for all, but you in a vain egotistical manner want to restrict the game, and feel the need to impose upon others.

When you do that,,. No, your opinion on the matter is not equally valid.

Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

Nope.

I am not in any way telling you the game is too hard for you, or that you need to change the way you enjoy the game to make me happy, you can keep playing as you always have.

You on the other hand are telling me I need to change the way I play and enjoy this game to accommodate you.

That makes you imposing your belief on others.

Quite frankly if easy mode raids would kill raids as you know them today, then no one likes raids as you know them today. If they enjoyed them, then all that would happen is more people would play them, not some cultural shift in who played what.

and that's a fact.

The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

Why would you not like the change?

I would love to hear some reason that is not deplorably petty or painfully self serving shallow.

No, you would not. I've given reasoning dozens of time now. You've ignored them all.

P.S. It doesn't matter if you agree with my perspective or not. You have no means of proving your own expectations. You have no statistics, no data, nothing. You have your own opinion, and that's all. See where this is going? You're basically saying "my opinion matters more because it agrees with my opinion".

To coin a Phrase:

"I've provided data dozens of times now, You've ignored them all"

[Feanor.2358]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Existing raiding impacted - no.

Citation needed. This claim is the major problem of your clique. You can't prove it. Not just because you have no data to support it, but also because it is simply wrong.

The rest is irrelevant. The majority play easy content everywhere, that's not a surprise. That's by design as well.

[Bladestrom.6425]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Existing raiding impacted - no.

Citation needed. This claim is the major problem of your clique. You can't prove it. Not just because you have no data to support it, but also because it is simply wrong.

The rest is irrelevant. The majority play easy content everywhere, that's not a surprise. That's by design as well.

no actually every other AAA mmorpg has proven this as fact, including the market leading raiding game with millions of players playing raids every week. your 'citation needed' is not required, the market has already proven such a very long long time ago, despite the same remonstrations by raiders back then. You have inadvertently let out what the problem is however, some raiders fear that normal difficulty raids will affect their niche, and tbh with the attitudes around current raiding they are right to be fearful.

here is what the majority hear, I like dark chocolate, Despite the majority preferring milk chocolate they should not get it, either get to like dark chocolate or have nothing.

[STIHL.2489]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Existing raiding impacted - no.

Citation needed. This claim is the major problem of your clique. You can't prove it. Not just because you have no data to support it, but also because it is simply wrong.

The rest is irrelevant. The majority play easy content everywhere, that's not a surprise. That's by design as well.

no actually every other AAA mmorpg has proven this as fact, including the market leading raiding game with millions of players playing raids every week. your 'citation needed' is not required, the market has already proven such a very long long time ago, despite the same remonstrations by raiders back then. You have inadvertently let out what the problem is however, some raiders fear that normal difficulty raids will affect their niche, and tbh with the attitudes around current raiding they are right to be fearful.

This in a nut shell.

It's been proven over the last 15 years of gaming, that making content like raids more accessible to the general population is overall better for the longevity of the game, and the players that enjoy the hard, challenge modes, will continue to do them as they always have, the only group that suffers are the elitist try-hards but all their issues they bring upon themselves anyway.

[Sephylon.4938]

And this is why I wanted to steer the conversation towards how easy mode should work. Discussing whetber or not we should have 1 always ended up with: it'll work because x company did it vs it won't work because this happened to company x because of it.

[STIHL.2489]

@Sephylon.4938 said:And this is why I wanted to steer the conversation towards how easy mode should work. Discussing whetber or not we should have 1 always ended up with: it'll work because x company did it vs it won't work because this happened to company x because of it.

Well to be honest, I think they should have Easy, Normal, and Hard, with Normal being what they have now.. and hard being HARD, with Easy being more about Story and Character Engagement as opposed to just fight mechanics.

And while all would give the same rewards, the quantity and ratios of drops would be various.

IE: Easy would Receive Half what Normal Provides, and Hard would provide Double.

[Sephylon.4938]

But how does an easy mode play like? What mechanics needs to be changed to qualify as an easy mode? Should it just be as ohoni wants, a group encounter that you can solo with 0 threat of failure and bring peope along with you to reduce the time it takes to kill the boss? Should it teach people mechanics to prepare them for normal? How should the mechanics be taught, a boss fight event or as you go along on the boss fight?

[zealex.9410]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"zealex.9410" said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

That actually goes both ways. Happy consumers are silen consumers you know the consumers that are in game and having fun. The fact that the unhappy players that constantly complain are at most 20%~more than what ever ppl are on the forums that do raid says alot.

@Feanor.2358 said:Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

You're doing the same about the inclusion of raids in the first place, of course.

@Feanor.2358 said:The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

No, it's not symmetrical. We don't like the game how it is now because it's lacking something we would like to enjoy playing. You would not like it if it changed because you would be

upset

that we are

happy

playing our new mode. You cannot frame that as a symmetrical argument. It's like if you had a burger, and another person did not, and he were given a burger, you claim that it would be a "symmetrical argument" to be as upset at him getting that burger as he was to not have one, even though in either case you'd still have your own burger.

[zealex.9410]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"zealex.9410" said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

@Feanor.2358 said:Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

You're doing the same about the inclusion of raids in the first place, of course.

@Feanor.2358 said:The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

No, it's not symmetrical. We don't like the game how it is now because it's lacking something we would like to enjoy playing. You would not like it if it changed because you would be

upset

that we are

happy

playing our new mode. You cannot frame that as a symmetrical argument. It's like if you had a burger, and another person did not, and he were given a burger, you claim that it would be a "symmetrical argument" to be as upset at him getting that burger as he was to not have one, even though in either case you'd still have your own burger.

Please don't speculate how or why I would feel. You're way off. Not to mention I have repeatedly stated clearly, in more or less correct English, what I think. Again, it is irrelevant if you agree, or even if I am right. Since you don't have any real data to back your position, you cannot possibly expect anyone to take your own opinion as more important or valid than their own. You're only backing up your opinion with your opinion and somehow decide it has some greater value. Come on...

Again, I don't claim that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's. It doesn't need to be more valid than anyone else's to justify developing an easy mode. You having the opinion that you would not like an easy mode does not counteract my opinion that there should be one, they are just two distinct viewpoints. If I say chocolate is good and you say chocolate is bad, the net result is not that chocolate is neutral, it's that some people like chocolate, and if chocolate were available, some people would eat it, and other people wouldn't, which is fine.

this isn't about opinion, In fact:

1) the majority of players in GW2 do not play Raids in its current form, they do play 5 man instances in its current format - theres are obviously issues going on here a) elitism and b) the must have restrictive builds/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe... gameplay style.

Thats the case for high tier fractals as well. And for dungeon groups back in the day. Nothin wrong with those.

2) It has been proven in all the other big AAA mmorpg with raids that the majority will lap up normal mode raids and that the amount of players playing normal will vastly outstrip the niche playing the hardest difficulty.

Thats all well and dandy but thats an arguement that would matter if raids where the main thing to do in gw2 and they were the only thing developed.

Thats not the case, couldnt be further from the truth, raids have the slowest release circle already of all pve content in the game so the "majority" enjoy content made for them more than anyone else.

Its the equivalent to members of a sports club that requires regular attendance and a high level of commitment objecting to a club being opened in the area with less exclusive rules and standards, for no other reason than they would feel less special in their club.

No, its the equivalent of 2 diff clubs being open in a town that serve diff purpose and attract diff member for diff reasons.

Acid test, if anet released a normal mode raid tomorrow what would the impact be?

Existing raiding impacted - no.New content for anyone including the majority of the player base has new content - yes.

But its not about the existing content, it never was. Its about future content and how its developement will be impacted by this. Developers and development resources dont grow on tree and by extention neither do raids.

[STIHL.2489]

@"Sephylon.4938" said:But how does an easy mode play like? What mechanics needs to be changed to qualify as an easy mode? Should it just be as ohoni wants, a group encounter that you can solo with 0 threat of failure and bring peope along with you to reduce the time it takes to kill the boss? Should it teach people mechanics to prepare them for normal? How should the mechanics be taught, a boss fight event or as you go along on the boss fight?

This is a fair question.

With 3 simple changes, the raids could be made far more accessible.

• Insta-Kill effects to only do around Half-Life Damage.
• Overall HP of the Boss to be reduced by 35% and a 25% reduction in their personal damage effects (with Trash mobs getting a 50% reduction in their HP and Damage Effects)
• Timers (if there are any) are Doubled (This includes Countdown Timers, and how fast or slow "Ambient Effects" clock down,. like the circles in VG)

That should qualify as "Easy" as it is around Half as Hard and thus gives Half the Rewards to represent this.

And.. it would have non-skipable Cut Scenes added to it, that talk about why and what is going on here, and maybe add some dialogue for the Boss to explain what is going on.

Equally so.. Hard should around Double the Difficulty.

Which would be.

• Players can't be Revived if Killed, Downed, they can be saved, but if they die, they need to WP.
• Overall HP of the Boss +35%, Overall Boss Damage +25% (Trash Mobs are +50% More HP and do +25% more damage)
• Timers (if there are any) are Reduiced by 25%. (This includes all Ambient Effects like the VG green circles)

Easy raids would be on a 10 Day Timer, Normal Raids on a 7 Day Timer, and Hard Raids would be on a 4 day Timer.

[STIHL.2489]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@zealex.9410 said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

That actually goes both ways. Happy consumers are silen consumers you know the consumers that are in game and having fun. The fact that the unhappy players that constantly complain are at most 20%~more than what ever ppl are on the forums that do raid says alot.

and yet here you are talking up a storm.. they give you raids and you are still not content, talk about futile efforts, if that is going to be the case, they should give me raids, it would shut me up for a while at least.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Sephylon.4938" said:And this is why I wanted to steer the conversation towards how easy mode should work. Discussing whetber or not we should have 1 always ended up with: it'll work because x company did it vs it won't work because this happened to company x because of it.

True, but at the same time, discussing the nitty-gritty of how an easy mode would function is a bit pointless if we caan't agree that they should exist even in principle. It's like redecorating the kitchen before you've even bought the house.

Should it just be as ohoni wants, a group encounter that you can solo with 0 threat of failure and bring peope along with you to reduce the time it takes to kill the boss?

I will note, I think zero threat of failure is a bit further than I'd want. Better then the current option, obviously, but not ideal. I'm just saying, aim for the current content standards elsewhere in the game, if you go in and "just press one" then you should all die. If you aren't paying attention at all then you should die. But if everyone at least attempts to dodge most telegraphs as best they can, if everyone uses their full selection of attacks (even on non-meta builds and without ideal boon distribution" then they should pull through eventually, even if it takes a bit longer than normal. And if a few people completely drop the ball (figuratively or literally) then a few try-hards can still carry them along without too much trouble (I would be one of the latter, in that scenario).

Attempts should fail, they should just fail at a much lower rate than you'd currently expect out of even somewhat experienced teams, and certainly much less often than you'd see in the sort of random pugs we're talking about here. I don't think it's helpful to exaggerate the position of either side.

@"zealex.9410" said:That actually goes both ways. Happy consumers are silen consumers you know the consumers that are in game and having fun. The fact that the unhappy players that constantly complain are at most 20%~more than what ever ppl are on the forums that do raid says alot.

Yes, but many of those "happy players" would also be happy to do easy mode raiding, so you really can't assume where they'd fall one way or the other.

@"STIHL.2489" said:Overall HP of the Boss to be reduced by 35% and a 25% reduction in their personal damage effects (with Trash mobs getting a 50% reduction in their HP and Damage Effects)

Hey STIHL, consider this alternative, don't reduce anyone's HP. I think that so long as damage is reduced to manageable levels, and "auto-fail" conditions like enrage timers and updraft "ammo" are removed, basically if the boss fights could theoretically last hours if necessary, then reducing the bosses HP wouldn't be necessary, and teams with lower DPS would just take longer to kill the boss than teams with meta DPS builds. I think this would be a good self-balancing mechanism, as easy mode could then be designed to take longer per kill than hard mode (but more reliably successful), which would reduce the "playing easy mode is faster and therefore a better use of time" arguments. If you can reliably kill on hard mode, you should. If you can't, easy mode is also an option.

I don't entirely agree with your other options, but I would play that mode anyway, it's good enough.

[Tyson.5160]

@zealex.9410 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@zealex.9410 said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

@Feanor.2358 said:Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

You're doing the same about the inclusion of raids in the first place, of course.

@Feanor.2358 said:The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

No, it's not symmetrical. We don't like the game how it is now because it's lacking something we would like to enjoy playing. You would not like it if it changed because you would be

upset

that we are

happy

playing our new mode. You cannot frame that as a symmetrical argument. It's like if you had a burger, and another person did not, and he were given a burger, you claim that it would be a "symmetrical argument" to be as upset at him getting that burger as he was to not have one, even though in either case you'd still have your own burger.

Please don't speculate how or why I would feel. You're way off. Not to mention I have repeatedly stated clearly, in more or less correct English, what I think. Again, it is irrelevant if you agree, or even if I am right. Since you don't have any real data to back your position, you cannot possibly expect anyone to take your own opinion as more important or valid than their own. You're only backing up your opinion with your opinion and somehow decide it has some greater value. Come on...

Again, I don't claim that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's. It doesn't need to be more valid than anyone else's to justify developing an easy mode. You having the opinion that you would not like an easy mode does not counteract my opinion that there should be one, they are just two distinct viewpoints. If I say chocolate is good and you say chocolate is bad, the net result is not that chocolate is neutral, it's that some people like chocolate, and if chocolate were available, some people would eat it, and other people wouldn't, which is fine.

this isn't about opinion, In fact:

1) the majority of players in GW2 do not play Raids in its current form, they do play 5 man instances in its current format - theres are obviously issues going on here a) elitism and b) the must have restrictive builds/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe... gameplay style.

Thats the case for high tier fractals as well. And for dungeon groups back in the day. Nothin wrong with those.

2) It has been proven in all the other big AAA mmorpg with raids that the majority will lap up normal mode raids and that the amount of players playing normal will vastly outstrip the niche playing the hardest difficulty.

Thats all well and dandy but thats an arguement that would matter if raids where the main thing to do in gw2 and they were the only thing developed.

Thats not the case, couldnt be further from the truth, raids have the slowest release circle already of all pve content in the game so the "majority" enjoy content made for them more than anyone else.

Its the equivalent to members of a sports club that requires regular attendance and a high level of commitment objecting to a club being opened in the area with less exclusive rules and standards, for no other reason than they would feel less special in their club.

No, its the equivalent of 2 diff clubs being open in a town that serve diff purpose and attract diff member for diff reasons.

Acid test, if anet released a normal mode raid tomorrow what would the impact be?

Existing raiding impacted - no.New content for anyone including the majority of the player base has new content - yes.

But its not about the existing content, it never was. Its about future content and how its developement will be impacted by this. Developers and development resources dont grow on tree and by extention neither do raids.

Ok, are Raiders currently happy with how long it takes to create raids and get them shipped?

[Sephylon.4938]

True, but at the same time, discussing the nitty-gritty of how an easy mode would function is a bit pointless if we caan't agree that they should exist even in principle. It's like redecorating the kitchen before you've even bought the house.@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Sephylon.4938" said:And this is why I wanted to steer the conversation towards how easy mode should work. Discussing whetber or not we should have 1 always ended up with: it'll work because x company did it vs it won't work because this happened to company x because of it.

True, but at the same time, discussing the nitty-gritty of how an easy mode would function is a bit pointless if we caan't agree that they should exist even

in principle.

It's like redecorating the kitchen before you've even bought the house.

But this conversation almost always ends up in the exact same way every time it is brought up, and nothing new is gained from it. Additionally I do not see the point as to why "they" should need to agree with the premise of easy mode raids. The target should first and foremost be arena net, and the only way to convince them is to provide empirical and indisputable proof that easy mode is what majority of the player base wants, and not just we who frequent the forum. In order to do this the blanket statement of "we need easy mode" is not enough. What I believe is needed is the specifics of it and as to how it will benefit anet financially, either by an increase in their player base through returning players, or an increase in sales of previous and future content from new/returning players. I am not saying to dismiss all of their criticisms and claims, some of those do have value and provide some insight that may have been missed.

Should it just be as ohoni wants, a group encounter that you can solo with 0 threat of failure and bring peope along with you to reduce the time it takes to kill the boss?

I will note, I think

zero

threat of failure is a bit further than I'd want. Better then the current option, obviously, but not ideal. I'm just saying, aim for the current content standards elsewhere in the game, if you go in and "just press one" then you should all die. If you aren't paying attention

at all

then you should die. But if everyone at least

attempts

to dodge most telegraphs as best they can, if everyone uses their full selection of attacks (even on non-meta builds and without ideal boon distribution" then they should pull through eventually, even if it takes a bit longer than normal. And if a few people completely drop the ball (figuratively or literally) then a few try-hards can still carry them along without too much trouble (I would be one of the latter, in that scenario).

From my understanding of your statement, you want the threat of failure to come mostly from the attacks of the boss itself, and not the mechanics, am I correct in my understanding?

@STIHL.2489 said:@"Sephylon.4938" said:But how does an easy mode play like? What mechanics needs to be changed to qualify as an easy mode? Should it just be as ohoni wants, a group encounter that you can solo with 0 threat of failure and bring peope along with you to reduce the time it takes to kill the boss? Should it teach people mechanics to prepare them for normal? How should the mechanics be taught, a boss fight event or as you go along on the boss fight?

This is a fair question.

With 3 simple changes, the raids could be made far more accessible.

• Insta-Kill effects to only do around Half-Life Damage.
• Overall HP of the Boss to be reduced by 35% and a 25% reduction in their personal damage effects (with Trash mobs getting a 50% reduction in their HP and Damage Effects)
• Timers (if there are any) are Doubled (This includes Countdown Timers, and how fast or slow "Ambient Effects" clock down,. like the circles in VG)

Such was discussed before. It was agreed upon that the time it takes to kill the boss should be no different than normal, but the threat of wiping should be significantly lower. Additionally, the only opinion I received is that the mechanics should not be too different from normal, both in timing and execution. We were discussing ways to lower it in a vg fight. Other view points are greatly appreciated. Some of the proposals were to:

1) increase the radius of greens to ensure it is more noticeable and easier to get to. Greens still wipes the party to compensate.2) Increase the time it takes for greens to close, and reduce the number of people required to save the group from it. Greens still wipes the party to compensate.3)Reduce the randomness of green's spawn locations4)Reduction of the green's damage5)QOL with the visual clutter6)Increased time for blue circles to detonate7)Reduction of the seeker orbs, either the radius of it or the pulsing damage8)Removal of the bullet hell9)Introduction of a "mistlock singularity" in the raid instance with 3-5 stacks10)Reduction of the boss' bullet storm attack (not to be confused with the passive bullet hell) and/or reduction of its break bar.

And.. it would have non-skipable Cut Scenes added to it, that talk about why and what is going on here, and maybe add some dialogue for the Boss to explain what is going on.That doesn't exist in normal mode, and that would be something anet would have to make from scratch, including both animation and voice acting for it.

Equally so.. Hard should around Double the Difficulty.

Which would be.

• Players can't be Revived if Killed, Downed, they can be saved, but if they die, they need to WP.Already happens, there is no wp in raids
• Overall HP of the Boss +35%, Overall Boss Damage +25% (Trash Mobs are +50% More HP and do +25% more damage)Already present in some bosses with a challenge mote
• Timers (if there are any) are Reduced by 25%. (This includes all Ambient Effects like the VG green circles)Already present in some bosses in some bosses with a challenge moteEasy raids would be on a 10 Day Timer, Normal Raids on a 7 Day Timer, and Hard Raids would be on a 4 day Timer.As an aside, it is rare for anyone to play the cm of raid bosses as the rewards for it are a one time thing, and the loot given by it is no better than normal.

[Brynioch.1873]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"zealex.9410" said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

@Feanor.2358 said:Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

You're doing the same about the inclusion of raids in the first place, of course.

@Feanor.2358 said:The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

No, it's not symmetrical. We don't like the game how it is now because it's lacking something we would like to enjoy playing. You would not like it if it changed because you would be

upset

that we are

happy

playing our new mode. You cannot frame that as a symmetrical argument. It's like if you had a burger, and another person did not, and he were given a burger, you claim that it would be a "symmetrical argument" to be as upset at him getting that burger as he was to not have one, even though in either case you'd still have your own burger.

Please don't speculate how or why I would feel. You're way off. Not to mention I have repeatedly stated clearly, in more or less correct English, what I think. Again, it is irrelevant if you agree, or even if I am right. Since you don't have any real data to back your position, you cannot possibly expect anyone to take your own opinion as more important or valid than their own. You're only backing up your opinion with your opinion and somehow decide it has some greater value. Come on...

Again, I don't claim that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's. It doesn't need to be more valid than anyone else's to justify developing an easy mode. You having the opinion that you would not like an easy mode does not counteract my opinion that there should be one, they are just two distinct viewpoints. If I say chocolate is good and you say chocolate is bad, the net result is not that chocolate is neutral, it's that some people like chocolate, and if chocolate were available, some people would eat it, and other people wouldn't, which is fine.

this isn't about opinion, In fact:

1) the majority of players in GW2 do not play Raids in its current form, they do play 5 man instances in its current format - theres are obviously issues going on here a) elitism and b) the must have restrictive builds/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe... gameplay style.2) It has been proven in all the other big AAA mmorpg with raids that the majority will lap up normal mode raids and that the amount of players playing normal will vastly outstrip the niche playing the hardest difficulty.

Its the equivalent to members of a sports club that requires regular attendance and a high level of commitment objecting to a club being opened in the area with less exclusive rules and standards, for no other reason than they would feel less special in their club.

Acid test, if anet released a normal mode raid tomorrow what would the impact be?

Existing raiding impacted - no.New content for anyone including the majority of the player base has new content - yes.

No it has never been proven. Look at the content model from GW2 and the other games. The other games have content patches with a raid and nothing else. So either don't get any content for 6-7 months or play easy mode raids.Of course it will impact existing raids. It will slow down the development of actual new raids

@Tyson.5160 said:

Ok, are Raiders currently happy with how long it takes to create raids and get them shipped?

Many not and this is the point all easy mode people try to ignore. It will slow down the already slow development progress for raids.But on the other hand we understand that this game is not raid focused and raids are not that high in the priority list.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Sephylon.4938" said:The target should first and foremost be arena net, and the only way to convince them is to provide empirical and indisputable proof that easy mode is what majority of the player base wants, and not just we who frequent the forum.

Nah, us players are completely incapable of providing that sort of data one way or the other. If ANet wants that data, they are in a much better position to accumulate it than we are. The goal here on the forums is to present compelling arguments as to why they should try.

What I believe is needed is the specifics of it and as to how it will benefit anet financially, either by an increase in their player base through returning players, or an increase in sales of previous and future content from new/returning players.

I believe that there are enough players out there that would be interested in such a thing that it would cause a net gain in players, a net increase in active players, and a net increase in spending from those players, due to increased player engagement and enjoyment of their product (since most of their revenue is by choice, not necessity, player enjoyment is much more important than mere player retention). Of course, as a mere player, I have no access to the sort of data that could prove or disprove such a position, any more than you do, but it is what I believe, and will continue to insist upon.

From my understanding of your statement, you want the threat of failure to come mostly from the attacks of the boss itself, and not the mechanics, am I correct in my understanding?

From the confluence of the two. As of right now, if you miss certain mechanics, you will be auto-killed, or at least auto-downed, or mostly-downed if they're being generous. I would shift these down a step or two, so that they are individually much more survivable. But they would stack up. If you're playing VG stage 3, and just standing inside the "bad slices," with red balls stacked all over you, dropping green circles left and right, obviously that should kill you. But tanking through one of those things should be fairly easy, and maybe a couple of them if there a lot of heals being pumped out. Basically players should have more breathing room to recover from badly handled mechanics, but if you allow too many of them to accumulate then it could cause you trouble. Again, like most dungeon or Story boss fights, most of them require attention and skill, but relatively few of them are instantly lethal.

[STIHL.2489]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"STIHL.2489" said:Overall HP of the Boss to be reduced by 35% and a 25% reduction in their personal damage effects (with Trash mobs getting a 50% reduction in their HP and Damage Effects)

Hey STIHL, consider this alternative, don't reduce anyone's HP. I think that so long as damage is reduced to manageable levels, and "auto-fail" conditions like enrage timers and updraft "ammo" are removed, basically if the boss fights could theoretically last hours if necessary, then reducing the bosses HP wouldn't be necessary, and teams with lower DPS would just take longer to kill the boss than teams with meta DPS builds. I think this would be a good self-balancing mechanism, as easy mode could then be

designed

to take longer per kill than hard mode (but more reliably successful), which would reduce the "playing easy mode is faster and therefore a better use of time" arguments. If you

can

reliably kill on hard mode, you should. If you can't, easy mode is also an option.

I don't entirely

agree

with your other options, but I would play that mode anyway, it's good enough.

That's a solid point, and I am not against this idea either.

[STIHL.2489]

@Sephylon.4938 said:

True, but at the same time, discussing the nitty-gritty of how an easy mode would function is a bit pointless if we caan't agree that they should exist even in principle. It's like redecorating the kitchen before you've even bought the house.

The thing to keep in mind here, is that casuals want solutions, they don't want keep others out of their game, case in point, one poster made a fuss that they should get map completion playing WvW, and only WvW, as some counter point to easy raids, thinking the casuals would be against the idea, but as it turned out, we tossed out ideas, discussed them, and even came to a reasonable solution on how to provide them what they wanted.

That is a main divergence between a casual player and the elitist the casual wants others to play with them and have fun, the elitist wants to exclude people and just have something to brag and feel better about themselves.

As such, if you left a topic to a bunch of casuals on how to make an easy mode raid, we would work it, because we want to make people feel included, we want others to be with us, just like @"Ohoni.6057" idea of making the fights last as long, but not having a enrage timer, that way, if it takes a pack of sub par players twice as long to win, then so be it. I can get behind that, and while I am not a fan of how it might draw out the fights, and even make them a slog, they have a point that, it would make the most sense to not try to make them too fast, because they are "raids" after all.

But this conversation almost always ends up in the exact same way every time it is brought up, and nothing new is gained from it. Additionally I do not see the point as to why "they" should need to agree with the premise of easy mode raids. The target should first and foremost be arena net, and the only way to convince them is to provide empirical and indisputable proof that easy mode is what majority of the player base wants, and not just we who frequent the forum. In order to do this the blanket statement of "we need easy mode" is not enough. What I believe is needed is the specifics of it and as to how it will benefit anet financially, either by an increase in their player base through returning players, or an increase in sales of previous and future content from new/returning players. I am not saying to dismiss all of their criticisms and claims, some of those do have value and provide some insight that may have been missed.

This has been explained. It's not even that I want a raid, or that I want an easy mode raid, or even that I want legendary armor. The main thing here is that they need to put long term goals like Legendary Armor, within the reach of at the very least, the majority of their population. When they put Legendary Armor behind raids, they limited them to being only obtainable by around 5 - 10% of their population, and the other 90% may as well not even bother thinking about it.

That, discourages players. It takes away their long term goals, and even if they didn't have a strong desire to farm out a legendary anything, having that taken from therm demotivates them, as now, as opposed to things like Legendary items being "When I get around to it" or "if I see something I like I will farm that" they fall into the category of "Out of my Ability" and "Never going to happen".

Now, in a game like say, WoW, that was built from the start to have that "have and have nots" among it's population, GW2, was built with the idea of "Everyone Can Win", and then to shift direction, well, that will alienate a large portion of their player base.

As for facts, their direct decline in sales following the introduction of Raids into this game, shows that, what they did was not well received by their population, their new moves to try and drum up real money sales, also show they need to do more to placate their players, and a large part of that, is giving them a long term goal, giving them back Legendary Access.

In the end, it is their game, and they know something is going wrong, we are just trying to tell them, "Look at this as a Problem, and think about a Solution"

They can of course chose to ignore us, but, it won't hurt us, it will hurt them.

[Tyson.5160]

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"zealex.9410" said:The latest poll on these forums had a total of around 30%+ combined of ppl that raid alot and ppl that raid some times. It also had alot of ppl picking the option "something else" of which alot asked if training raids count and the op said no. Another easy 5-10%~ of ppl that do training runs which yes, is raidind.

But again, a poll listed ON the raiding forum, so obviously one that would skew heavily toward players interested in that sort of thing, so if 30% indicated that they raid occasionally, that was the cap, not the baseline.

@Feanor.2358 said:Your goal is not a feature in a vacuum. You're disregarding all the effects you don't like. It doesn't mean they disappear. So yeah, you're trying to impose your opinion on others. Or rather, it's effects.

You're doing the same about the inclusion of raids in the first place, of course.

@Feanor.2358 said:The fact is this:

• I like how the game is now and you don't.
• If your proposed changes went through, you'd like how the game is and I won't.

It's symmetrical, exactly the same when regarded as a personal opinion.

No, it's not symmetrical. We don't like the game how it is now because it's lacking something we would like to enjoy playing. You would not like it if it changed because you would be

upset

that we are

happy

playing our new mode. You cannot frame that as a symmetrical argument. It's like if you had a burger, and another person did not, and he were given a burger, you claim that it would be a "symmetrical argument" to be as upset at him getting that burger as he was to not have one, even though in either case you'd still have your own burger.

Please don't speculate how or why I would feel. You're way off. Not to mention I have repeatedly stated clearly, in more or less correct English, what I think. Again, it is irrelevant if you agree, or even if I am right. Since you don't have any real data to back your position, you cannot possibly expect anyone to take your own opinion as more important or valid than their own. You're only backing up your opinion with your opinion and somehow decide it has some greater value. Come on...

Again, I don't claim that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's. It doesn't need to be more valid than anyone else's to justify developing an easy mode. You having the opinion that you would not like an easy mode does not counteract my opinion that there should be one, they are just two distinct viewpoints. If I say chocolate is good and you say chocolate is bad, the net result is not that chocolate is neutral, it's that some people like chocolate, and if chocolate were available, some people would eat it, and other people wouldn't, which is fine.

this isn't about opinion, In fact:

1) the majority of players in GW2 do not play Raids in its current form, they do play 5 man instances in its current format - theres are obviously issues going on here a) elitism and b) the must have restrictive builds/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe/try/wipe... gameplay style.2) It has been proven in all the other big AAA mmorpg with raids that the majority will lap up normal mode raids and that the amount of players playing normal will vastly outstrip the niche playing the hardest difficulty.

Its the equivalent to members of a sports club that requires regular attendance and a high level of commitment objecting to a club being opened in the area with less exclusive rules and standards, for no other reason than they would feel less special in their club.

Acid test, if anet released a normal mode raid tomorrow what would the impact be?

Existing raiding impacted - no.New content for anyone including the majority of the player base has new content - yes.

No it has never been proven. Look at the content model from GW2 and the other games. The other games have content patches with a raid and nothing else. So either don't get any content for 6-7 months or play easy mode raids.Of course it will impact existing raids. It will slow down the development of actual new raids

@Tyson.5160 said:

Ok, are Raiders currently happy with how long it takes to create raids and get them shipped?

Many not and this is the point all easy mode people try to ignore. It will slow down the already slow development progress for raids.But on the other hand we understand that this game is not raid focused and raids are not that high in the priority list.

Ok, so how can Raids be released faster?

[Sephylon.4938]

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Sephylon.4938 said:

True, but at the same time, discussing the nitty-gritty of how an easy mode would function is a bit pointless if we caan't agree that they should exist even in principle. It's like redecorating the kitchen before you've even bought the house.

The thing to keep in mind here, is that casuals want solutions, they don't want keep others out of their game, case in point, one poster made a fuss that they should get map completion playing WvW, and only WvW, as some counter point to easy raids, thinking the casuals would be against the idea, but as it turned out, we tossed out ideas, discussed them, and even came to a reasonable solution on how to provide them what they wanted.

That is a main divergence between a casual player and the elitist the casual wants others to play with them and have fun, the elitist wants to exclude people and just have something to brag and feel better about themselves.

As such, if you left a topic to a bunch of casuals on how to make an easy mode raid, we would work it, because we want to make people feel included, we want others to be with us, just like @"Ohoni.6057" idea of making the fights last as long, but not having a enrage timer, that way, if it takes a pack of sub par players twice as long to win, then so be it. I can get behind that, and while I am not a fan of how it might draw out the fights, and even make them a slog, they have a point that, it would make the most sense to not try to make them too fast, because they are "raids" after all.

Just to clarify, that quote is Ohoni's not mine.

But this conversation almost always ends up in the exact same way every time it is brought up, and nothing new is gained from it. Additionally I do not see the point as to why "they" should need to agree with the premise of easy mode raids. The target should first and foremost be arena net, and the only way to convince them is to provide empirical and indisputable proof that easy mode is what majority of the player base wants, and not just we who frequent the forum. In order to do this the blanket statement of "we need easy mode" is not enough. What I believe is needed is the specifics of it and as to how it will benefit anet financially, either by an increase in their player base through returning players, or an increase in sales of previous and future content from new/returning players. I am not saying to dismiss all of their criticisms and claims, some of those do have value and provide some insight that may have been missed.This has been explained. It's not even that I want a raid, or that I want an easy mode raid, or even that I want legendary armor. The main thing here is that they need to put long term goals like Legendary Armor, within the reach of at the very least, the majority of their population. When they put Legendary Armor behind raids, they limited them to being only obtainable by around 5 - 10% of their population, and the other 90% may as well not even bother thinking about it.

That, discourages players. It takes away their long term goals, and even if they didn't have a strong desire to farm out a legendary anything, having that taken from therm demotivates them, as now, as opposed to things like Legendary items being "When I get around to it" or "if I see something I like I will farm that" they fall into the category of "Out of my Ability" and "Never going to happen".

That is a fair point and which is why I want to discuss how it should play like. The current solution of raid training guilds is currently a one size fits all solution that does not fit all. I believe that an easy mode can give them a foot in the door IF done correctly. Which is why I want to discuss HOW it should be done, so that there is little room for miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Now to the matter at hand, we've discussed plausible changes to vg to allow it to become easier to handle with an inexperienced group, which of the aforementioned changes would best fit to be an invitation to people to play and enjoy the game mode? An explanation of your stance would be appreciated. As a refresher:

1) increase the radius of greens to ensure it is more noticeable and easier to get to. Greens still wipes the party to compensate.2) Increase the time it takes for greens to close, and reduce the number of people required to save the group from it. Greens still wipes the party to compensate.3)Reduce the randomness of green's spawn locations4)Reduction of the green's damage5)QOL with the visual clutter6)Increased time for blue circles to detonate7)Reduction of the seeker orbs, either the radius of it or the pulsing damage8)Removal of the bullet hell9)Introduction of a "mistlock singularity" in the raid instance with 3-5 stacks10)Reduction of the boss' bullet storm attack (not to be confused with the passive bullet hell) and/or reduction of its break bar.

[Sephylon.4938]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Sephylon.4938 said:The target should first and foremost be arena net, and the only way to convince them is to provide empirical and indisputable proof that easy mode is what majority of the player base wants, and not just we who frequent the forum.

Nah, us players are completely incapable of providing that sort of data one way or the other. If ANet wants that data, they are in a much better position to accumulate it than we are. The goal here on the forums is to present compelling arguments as to why they should

try.

not completely. We are capable of creating surveys and polls in the forums, then bringing attention of it to the game in order to get a wide view as possible to better reflect reality in the game as opposed to in the forums.

[Brynioch.1873]

@Tyson.5160 said:Ok, so how can Raids be released faster?

I don't know the structure of ArenaNets development so I can't comment on that. But I fully understand that this game is not raid focused so if both LS and raid team need something from shared teams like audio or art LS will propably win and raids need longer in that aspect.A possible solution could be to prioritize raids more but this wouldn't be good for the rest of the game.

[Feanor.2358]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Existing raiding impacted - no.

Citation needed. This claim is the major problem of your clique. You can't prove it. Not just because you have no data to support it, but also because it is simply wrong.

The rest is irrelevant. The majority play easy content everywhere, that's not a surprise. That's by design as well.

no actually every other AAA mmorpg has proven this as fact, including the market leading raiding game with millions of players playing raids every week. your 'citation needed' is not required, the market has already proven such a very long long time ago, despite the same remonstrations by raiders back then. You have inadvertently let out what the problem is however, some raiders fear that normal difficulty raids will affect their niche, and tbh with the attitudes around current raiding they are right to be fearful.

here is what the majority hear, I like dark chocolate, Despite the majority preferring milk chocolate they should not get it, either get to like dark chocolate or have nothing.

The thing is, the game is 95% milk chocolate already.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Sephylon.4938" said:That is a fair point and which is why I want to discuss how it should play like. The current solution of raid training guilds is currently a one size fits all solution that does not fit all. I believe that an easy mode can give them a foot in the door IF done correctly. Which is why I want to discuss HOW it should be done, so that there is little room for miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Which comes from a good place, but I think the fundamental remaining problem is that you seem only willing to view it as a stepping stone, that the eventual goal for all players should be to do the hard mode. Can you accept that for many players, an easy mode would be the summit, not just the basecamp? That for many players, no matter how easy mode was structured, and no matter how flawlessly they can execute it, shifting to hard mode would still reduce their enjoyment, rather than lead to better things?

I believe that a fundamental element of any easy mode proposed needs to be that it can stand on its own, as an end-all, be-all experience for a great many players, that is fully satisfying as such, rather than as some hamstrung counterfeit of the original that is only meant to nudge people in the "right" direction.

Don't get me wrong, if some players want to migrate from nothing to easy to hard, then that's fine, and I'm fairly confident that some will, but I'm equally confident that many will have no interest in doing so, and easy mode, for them, needs to be suitable as an entree, not just an appetizer.

We are capable of creating surveys and polls in the forums,

Which is fairly worthless in terms of "data." It's basically anecdotal at best. Forum polls typically have very small sample sizes and biasing locations, which makes them junk. As I said, the only polling that would be at all valid beyond just shooting the breeze between us, would be if it were done using a relatively large random sample of people playing the game. Even if it were players asking other players in game, it would still be biased by being based on those players who happened to be at the location the pollster was at. For example, polling within the Mistlock Sanctuary would bias results in favor of people who spend money, and also likely to some degree people who play Fractals (although I'm sure plenty there do not). polling within LA would bias toward F2Ps and people who like to stand around all day, like crafters/traders or showoffs. Polling inside the Aerodrome would obviously be highly biased in favor of raids, while polling outside of it would likely see a lot less raiders. None of these locations would be all one thing or another, obviously, but the results would be heavily biased, and plenty of people would be missed entirely, like players running world completion on random maps, or going through personal story, or something of that sort.

We're better served just speaking for ourselves and making compelling arguments. It's up to ANet to take the steps to actually weigh player populations.

[derd.6413]

only if current difficulty is easy