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

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:no but in GW1 there was raids with plenty of wiggle room you could pug with little experience.

So requiring a person to bring boon strip in GW2 is much more of a hassle for pugs than bringing a full fledged protector/healer character in GW1 (and probably an interrupt Mesmer too).Gw1 had heroes. You could easily patch party problems with them. In fact, many groups did just that.

@maddoctor.2738 said:Scroll up and you can find some statistics on what the "majority" does in GW2. If you don't want to bother, here is the break down: the majority of GW2 players don't run instanced content, that means Raids, dungeons and fractals. How do you expect this "majority" that avoids instanced content, to Raid? Or the Raids are gonna be easier than the dungeons and fractals? I don't think you understand what the word majority meansThey don't need to be easier. Just making them the same as average dungeons (so, neither Arah nor AC) would be a significant jump in population. Even more if you based them on AC. Not that i think they necessarily need to be that easy.

[Sykper.6583]

@CptAurellian.9537 said:

@Sykper.6583 said:The only method we have for getting an idea on where raid participation actually is, is how future raid development progresses, if raids get harder, etc. Arenanet has the real numbers, and if their numbers suggest that implementing the latest harder raid caused the participation to go upwards, they will consider that as the community actually enjoying progressively harder content and vice versa.I am not convinced. You imply that ANet can tune the difficulty of encounters very finely and exactly according to their wishes. I don't see evidence for that.

It's scarcely a matter of tuning as it is a matter of creativity, the introduction of more complex and potentially 'punishing' mechanics.

What's going to be the harder raid? One that starts off with a 'Vale Guardian' as the first boss and escalates, or the one that starts off with a 'Matthias'?

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Astralporing.1957" said:Gw1 had heroes. You could easily patch party problems with them. In fact, many groups did just that.

Even those heroes needed to be ready for the role, you needed to have a Monk hero ready to heal so that doesn't change much. Henchmen weren't available in the Underworld.

They don't need to be easier. Just making them the same as average dungeons (so, neither Arah nor AC) would be a significant jump in population. Even more if you based them on AC. Not that i think they necessarily need to be that easy.

I don't think it would be a significant jump, if you take the average rates of the level 80 content, that is Arah and Crucible of Eternity. AC is a low level dungeon that is the one that you can overcome the mechanics with brute force (higher tier gear), this is true for all dungeons because they were all created for Exotic gear in mind. Even if the jump was indeed significant, it's a far cry from being "content for the majority".

[Sephylon.4938]

@nia.4725 said:I've just got out of a Sabetha training. Chronos were experienced (me and a guildmate). One cannoneer was, too. The other cannoneer was completely new. We wiped 3 or 4 times because the new cannoneer didn't get the order of the cannons, and people were missing green bombs. So we explained the thing again, had 1 player call the cannons so the newbie got some help, and we killed the boss. Less than an hour in total. The mood was positive: the experienced ones only explained if it was needed, helped and everyone got their chance to learn.

I find having taco makes that fight alot easier, hoping that we do get a call out npc built into the game one day, one of the suggestions on my other thread.

[BillC.4521]

There will be no end to this thread. Some people will like easy mode some wont like it. This thread remind me when anet fix invisible feature on their free 32slot bag from new map. Some people complain about it and some like it. But anet chose to fix the invisible bag feature from it. And just like raid, anet already told us what they want with it. Just accept it.

Even if they add easy mode then there will another post asking for challenging content since lfg for normal mode will be pretty much dead if easy mode exist. I mean easy mode where i can just AA and while watching movie since boss dmg reduced, mechanic nerfed so everything can be tanked by "minstrel tanker and sustained by "healer".

Even if you said it wont be like that, people will eventually find a way to do it like that. Just watch VG where they just stack in 1 place and dont bother to do the green :). Well who doesnt want a mode where you can get loot and finish all wings in 30min right. Even if the rewards(li, shards, asc gear) is nerfed they will eventually get the final reward(legend armor) so normal mode will be dead anyway. I dont think thats what anet want.

[nia.4725]

@Sephylon.4938 said:

@nia.4725 said:I've just got out of a Sabetha training. Chronos were experienced (me and a guildmate). One cannoneer was, too. The other cannoneer was completely new. We wiped 3 or 4 times because the new cannoneer didn't get the order of the cannons, and people were missing green bombs. So we explained the thing again, had 1 player call the cannons so the newbie got some help, and we killed the boss. Less than an hour in total. The mood was positive: the experienced ones only explained if it was needed, helped and everyone got their chance to learn.

I find having taco makes that fight alot easier, hoping that we do get a call out npc built into the game one day, one of the suggestions on my other thread.

I don't think neither of those options are good... They won't make you learn anything.

Maybe tacO could help raiders until they memorize the cannons order, but having an NPC that tells you the cannons is purely cheating the mechanic. What's the point in it? A mechanic has to be learnt. I can't do cannons myself, I've been support in 99% of my many Sabethas, and if my raid leader decided to make me go DPS in Sab (or if I asked him to let me learn cannons) I would want to learn in a legit way.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"nia.4725" said:Maybe tacO could help raiders until they memorize the cannons order, but having an NPC that tells you the cannons is purely cheating the mechanic. What's the point in it? A mechanic has to be learnt. I can't do cannons myself, I've been support in 99% of my many Sabethas, and if my raid leader decided to make me go DPS in Sab (or if I asked him to let me learn cannons) I would want to learn in a legit way.

For the vast majority of my Sabetha kills someone was calling the cannons on Discord, same with the green circles on Vale Guardian, Slothasor's shake and so on. Having someone to call things isn't cheating, it's part of teamwork. Besides, a player that only has to deal with providing Might to the group has a much easier time focusing on timing and mechanics and can make the calls. A player that is on a role that needs to move fast, react fast, has a much much harder time calling the mechanics. So the person with the least responsibility can very easily take over calling mechanics to make the life of the others, that have a much more strenuous job, a LOT easier.

For Sabetha specifically:

This takes care of all the timing and calling. Similar things can't work on other bosses because Sabetha has a fixed timer, however something like the above used in-game, instead of a youtube video, could be used to teach players the actual timings.

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"nia.4725" said:Maybe tacO could help raiders until they memorize the cannons order, but having an NPC that tells you the cannons is purely cheating the mechanic. What's the point in it? A mechanic has to be learnt. I can't do cannons myself, I've been support in 99% of my many Sabethas, and if my raid leader decided to make me go DPS in Sab (or if I asked him to let me learn cannons) I would want to learn in a legit way.

For the vast majority of my Sabetha kills someone was calling the cannons on Discord, same with the green circles on Vale Guardian, Slothasor's shake and so on. Having someone to call things isn't cheating, it's part of teamwork. Besides, a player that only has to deal with providing Might to the group has a much easier time focusing on timing and mechanics and can make the calls. A player that is on a role that needs to move fast, react fast, has a much much harder time calling the mechanics. So the person with the least responsibility can very easily take over calling mechanics to make the life of the others, that have a much more strenuous job, a LOT easier.

For Sabetha specifically:

This takes care of all the timing and calling. Similar things can't work on other bosses because Sabetha has a fixed timer, however something like the above used in-game, instead of a youtube video, could be used to teach players the actual timings.

Calling all cannons and calling general mechanics are different things, for me.

In my static we call things, too. My raid leader usually does that, specially on those bosses we struggle more at. He also calls cannons, but not all of them, and definitely not so that everyone depends on it. That's the point: it's nice to call mechanics, but no one should depend on it to be able to do them. You should be always capable of going to your cannon without depending on someone else to call it. What if that person does not call it for some random reason (they forgot, they got a mechanic...)?

[maddoctor.2738]

@nia.4725 said:In my static we call things, too. My raid leader usually does that, specially on those bosses we struggle more at. He also calls cannons, but not all of them, and definitely not so that everyone depends on it. That's the point: it's nice to call mechanics, but no one should depend on it to be able to do them. You should be always capable of going to your cannon without depending on someone else to call it. What if that person does not call it for some random reason (they forgot, they got a mechanic...)?

That's why you give the role of caller to the person that has the least responsibilities, so a random reason and a mechanic doesn't prevent them from calling the mechanic. I'm curious though, if you are completely new to the content, let's say first time going for cannons, wouldn't it be much better if someone guided you and told you when to go, instead of you, a new player, having to check the clock while also dealing with the rest of the mechanics of -for you- new fight?

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:In my static we call things, too. My raid leader usually does that, specially on those bosses we struggle more at. He also calls cannons, but not all of them, and definitely not so that everyone depends on it. That's the point: it's nice to call mechanics, but no one should depend on it to be able to do them. You should be always capable of going to your cannon without depending on someone else to call it. What if that person does not call it for some random reason (they forgot, they got a mechanic...)?

That's why you give the role of caller to the person that has the least responsibilities, so a random reason and a mechanic doesn't prevent them from calling the mechanic. I'm curious though, if you are completely new to the content, let's say first time going for cannons, wouldn't it be much better if someone guided you and told you when to go, instead of you, a new player, having to check the clock while also dealing with the rest of the mechanics of -for you- new fight?

Yes, of course. That's why we called cannons for that new raider in Sabetha. I'm talking more about experienced raiders -newbies do need help, and it's good to give it to them, and I'm all for doing it! But experienced raiders shouldn't need anyone to call mechanics. There can happen a lot of random things, like someone calling the caller on the telephone. What if the call fails? Mechanics should get learnt.

[maddoctor.2738]

@nia.4725 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:In my static we call things, too. My raid leader usually does that, specially on those bosses we struggle more at. He also calls cannons, but not all of them, and definitely not so that everyone depends on it. That's the point: it's nice to call mechanics, but no one should depend on it to be able to do them. You should be always capable of going to your cannon without depending on someone else to call it. What if that person does not call it for some random reason (they forgot, they got a mechanic...)?

That's why you give the role of caller to the person that has the least responsibilities, so a random reason and a mechanic doesn't prevent them from calling the mechanic. I'm curious though, if you are completely new to the content, let's say first time going for cannons, wouldn't it be much better if someone guided you and told you when to go, instead of you, a new player, having to check the clock while also dealing with the rest of the mechanics of -for you- new fight?

Yes, of course. That's why we called cannons for that new raider in Sabetha. I'm talking more about experienced raiders -newbies do need help, and it's good to give it to them, and I'm all for doing it! But experienced raiders shouldn't

need

anyone to call mechanics. There can happen a lot of random things, like someone calling the caller on the telephone. What if the call fails? Mechanics should get learnt.

Yes. And the best way to learn it is by having someone teach it to you. You are afraid that if they added a heavier visual/audio cue on mechanics it would make experienced raiders lazy and they won't learn the mechanics? I thought that was going to be something for the easier version and not in the normal Raid. Heck only having that video playing in the background makes Sabetha considerably easier, especially for new-timers.

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:In my static we call things, too. My raid leader usually does that, specially on those bosses we struggle more at. He also calls cannons, but not all of them, and definitely not so that everyone depends on it. That's the point: it's nice to call mechanics, but no one should depend on it to be able to do them. You should be always capable of going to your cannon without depending on someone else to call it. What if that person does not call it for some random reason (they forgot, they got a mechanic...)?

That's why you give the role of caller to the person that has the least responsibilities, so a random reason and a mechanic doesn't prevent them from calling the mechanic. I'm curious though, if you are completely new to the content, let's say first time going for cannons, wouldn't it be much better if someone guided you and told you when to go, instead of you, a new player, having to check the clock while also dealing with the rest of the mechanics of -for you- new fight?

Yes, of course. That's why we called cannons for that new raider in Sabetha. I'm talking more about experienced raiders -newbies do need help, and it's good to give it to them, and I'm all for doing it! But experienced raiders shouldn't

need

anyone to call mechanics. There can happen a lot of random things, like someone calling the caller on the telephone. What if the call fails? Mechanics should get learnt.

Yes. And the best way to learn it is by having someone teach it to you. You are afraid that if they added a heavier visual/audio cue on mechanics it would make experienced raiders lazy and they won't learn the mechanics? I thought that was going to be something for the easier version and not in the normal Raid. Heck only having that video playing in the background makes Sabetha considerably easier, especially for new-timers.

We're basically saying the same, I think both agree on the matter. Yeah, I think so, in the end I think that would happen. I do not have a formed opinion for the easier mode though... I mean, the idea of having a "caller NPC" doesn't appeal to me, but I also don't find any reason to clearly oppose to it (besides me being against an easy raid mode, in general). But it's clear and I completely agree when you say that new-timers should get help.

[Cjam.8634]

I really like the idea of adding a difficulty mode to raiding. But I don’t think adding an “easy” mode is the solution, adding a “hard” mode would be cool. I don’t have much time to find a static raiding guild or group so I use raid academy discord and I’ve been able to complete WAY more raids than I have expected. And the difficulty of the raids I’ve done have been fair and entertaining imo. Not too hard, not too easy either. Adding a hard mode would be fun to watch on YouTube and if I ever have the time, possibly try a hard mode raid myself. I see the point of adding an “easy” mode but imo raids are usually “harder” content so seeing them be titled “easy” just doesn’t sound right. Just my thoughts

[Ohoni.6057]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:I really hope you're engaging in rhetorical questions rather than genuinely not know the answer to the questions you're posing, after

this

much dialog has already gone on on the subject.

So you indeed want to fundamentally change the mechanic yet for some reason you claim otherwise. That was something I was always curious about and why I kept asking for "specifics", which until now you never actually gave. Now that I have them it's all been verified. Good luck!

Nothing I said there was anything I hadn't said a dozen times before, you just didn't bother to read those posts, apparently. When I say "I don't want the mechanics changed," I mean things like I don't want the green circles to require less players to clear or have a slower countdown, or to remove any effects entirely, or to add completely new effects that sort of offset something else (like a bonus "protective dome" that was never there before or something). Obviously if I'm suggesting an easy mode then some factors of the encounter would need to change to do that, I just want them to be ones where if you get them right, then it would require the exact same skills to do as it would take in hard mode, whereas if you get them wrong, then the penalties would just be less significant to the outcome.

Basically it's like a change to the legal system, I don't want to change any of the laws, I just want to change the sentencing guidelines. I want you to still get caught for doing the same things, just have less of a consequence if you do.

I wouldn't call the blue guardian damage immunity a one shot mechanic nor a timing issue.

Yes, but it is a barrier, since if you have no boon stripping, you can't really move past that part. This is why I think there would need to be a softening, a way to push through that element even if you didn't bring the right tool.

Check this thread: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/37656/how-would-an-easy-mode-raid-work-vg/p1 started with suggestions on a specific subject until the "abstract" people came aboard.

Keep in mind, the people that tried to derail that thread were entirely the anti-easy mode types who insisted on discussing "should" there be an easy mode, rather than engaging in the "how" discussion. It had nothing to do with the pro-easy mode participants, who were trying to engage in good faith.

Does it make a difference? The "majority" of the players on gw2efficiency do not run instanced content, will the actual game population be any different?Meaning, talking about making Raids accessible to the "majority" when the rest of the instanced content (which is much easier) isn't being run by the same majority doesn't make any sense at all. If in other games the majority does indeed run Raids, which I find unlikely, then maybe we'd first need to get the easier instanced content up to that point first, before touching Raids.

"Making raids accessible to the majority does not mean that the majority would play it, or that it would be a failed program if they did not. The point of accessibility is to make it so that those that want to have a better path to do so. People who choose not to, that's fine too.

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:i'm not talking about anecdote and example, im talking about the underlying systemic issues.

The discussion that you quoted was about the Blue Guardian's buff giving a 60% immunity to condition and power damage instead of immunity, so it was all about a very specific example. Got anything to say about that?

if you cant abstract the problem you will spend a year and a day arguing about point x and point y, as per thread.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to that one with the 'Doc.

@"nia.4725" said:Those mechanics don't make pugs fragile. Those mechanics make bad players/inexperienced players fragile, and that's the whole point of raids: you need to learn in order to be able to do the mechanic.

Casual pugs (not to be confused with "150Li only" pugs), will tend to have an above average amount of bad and inexperienced players, and if the goal is for them to succeed regardless of that, then the mechanics do need to be more forgiving.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:its really simple and can be abstracted quite easily - remove mechanics that makes PUGS fragile i.e one shot mechanics, bullet storms, tight timers.

So basically have a bag of hitpoints that poses no threat. Why does that sound

so

familiar? Where have I seen it? Oh, right... the Shadow Behemoth.

Hyperbole.

@"Sykper.6583" said:The only method we have for getting an idea on where raid participation actually is, is how future raid development progresses, if raids get harder, etc. Arenanet has the real numbers, and if their numbers suggest that implementing the latest harder raid caused the participation to go upwards, they will consider that as the community actually enjoying progressively harder content and vice versa.

I agree that we on the outside do not have solid data to work with, but that also extends to "reading the tea leaves" about what ANet does. Just because they do something does not imply any hard data for us to work with, since they make their decisions for their own reasons. They have fairly often made choices that the community did not agree with, based on reasons that I'm sure they thought were sound at the time.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:its really simple and can be abstracted quite easily - remove mechanics that makes PUGS fragile i.e one shot mechanics, bullet storms, tight timers.

So basically have a bag of hitpoints that poses no threat. Why does that sound

so

familiar? Where have I seen it? Oh, right... the Shadow Behemoth.

Hyperbole.

Actually it isn't. World bosses are the perfect, sad example of fights where mechanics are basically wasted because they're too inconsequential.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:its really simple and can be abstracted quite easily - remove mechanics that makes PUGS fragile i.e one shot mechanics, bullet storms, tight timers.

So basically have a bag of hitpoints that poses no threat. Why does that sound

so

familiar? Where have I seen it? Oh, right... the Shadow Behemoth.

Hyperbole.

Actually it isn't. World bosses are the perfect, sad example of fights where mechanics are basically wasted because they're too inconsequential.

You said Shadow Behemoth. Shadow Behemoth bears no comparison to this discussion. Hyperbole.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:its really simple and can be abstracted quite easily - remove mechanics that makes PUGS fragile i.e one shot mechanics, bullet storms, tight timers.

So basically have a bag of hitpoints that poses no threat. Why does that sound

so

familiar? Where have I seen it? Oh, right... the Shadow Behemoth.

Hyperbole.

Actually it isn't. World bosses are the perfect, sad example of fights where mechanics are basically wasted because they're too inconsequential.

You said Shadow Behemoth. Shadow Behemoth bears no comparison to this discussion. Hyperbole.

Arguing over semantics again? And again, wrongly.

[Nimon.7840]

I don't think we need easy mode. Even though I can understand that some people are asking for that.

What would be the rewards? If you make a boss much easier, you have to give less rewards. So bosses can't drop ascended gear anymore and you cannot get heating crystals or whatsoever in easy mode?

Else all those guilds that love raiding but still have to try 3or 4 times before dhuum is dead, they all will only run easy mode if the drops are the same as in normal or hard mode.

Well. Tbh. I already have my voice in the void title. So I'm not a complete "noob" who never killed dhuum.

And we worked hard on this new wing, before we cleared it completely. Why should other people get the easy mode to play through all the raids in like one hour?

So: bosses are fine as they are. And we already have a hard mode called challenge mode.

But implementing an easy mode is definitely bad I think. Even though not everyone can get the kills then.But easy mode is like playing PvP against a thief. That is going to backstab you and you get a big red warning sign on your screen 1secind before the backstab lands so you have time enough to dodge it.

What I really would like to do would be to go in a raid with more than 10 people.

For example:

Gorse:It will stay the way it it while 1-10people are fighting against it.But it will largely scale while more than 10 people are raiding it.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Yes, but it is a barrier, since if you have no boon stripping, you can't really move past that part. This is why I think there would need to be a softening, a way to push through that element even if you didn't bring the right tool.

Why not bring the tool? It's not like it takes more than 10 seconds to get boon strip.

Keep in mind, the people that tried to derail that thread were entirely the anti-easy mode types who insisted on discussing "should" there be an easy mode, rather than engaging in the "how" discussion. It had nothing to do with the pro-easy mode participants, who were trying to engage in good faith.

I see derailment by you personally there. Responding to a question "should they exist?" contributes in derailment the same way (or even more because it starts a discussion) as asking the question. You don't have to respond to every question sometimes let it die is the best option.

"Making raids accessible to the majority does not mean that the majority would play it, or that it would be a failed program if they did not. The point of accessibility is to make it so that those that want to have a better path to do so. People who choose not to, that's fine too.

So the big question then comes, how many will actually play this easy mode. Remember that one of the most prominent arguments about Raids is "it's content for a tiny minority". You agree that the players this easy mode applies to is limited, and in no way or form applies to the majority (another popular argument seen around often "make raids for the majority") I can even go further and say that someone that doesn't run other instanced content (like dungeons and fractals) won't run the easy mode Raids either, which leads to a very small percentage of the actual population. Keep this in mind next time you talk about how easy it is to implement. Implementation difficulty depends heavily on the number of people the content applies to.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:its really simple and can be abstracted quite easily - remove mechanics that makes PUGS fragile i.e one shot mechanics, bullet storms, tight timers.

So basically have a bag of hitpoints that poses no threat. Why does that sound

so

familiar? Where have I seen it? Oh, right... the Shadow Behemoth.

Hyperbole.

Actually it isn't. World bosses are the perfect, sad example of fights where mechanics are basically wasted because they're too inconsequential.

You said Shadow Behemoth. Shadow Behemoth bears no comparison to this discussion. Hyperbole.

Arguing over semantics again? And again, wrongly.

Arguing over hyperbole. When you make strawman arguments, accuse us of asking for what we are not asking for, then I will call you out on it, because I want a civil discussion in which we accept each others arguments, whether we agree with them or not. If you have no interest in such a discussion, you don't have to participate.

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Yes, but it is a barrier, since if you have no boon stripping, you can't really move past that part. This is why I think there would need to be a softening, a way to push through that element even if you didn't bring the right tool.

Why not bring the tool? It's not like it takes more than 10 seconds to get boon strip.

Because again, the idea is to make it casual-friendly, whatever tools you bring (within reason), should be good enough. Not the most efficient, but good enough. If you put out an LFG, and ten people show up, none of whom has a boon stripping ability, then that group should still be able to run the content, without having to kick anyone and put out a specific request. The whole point is to not wait around forming groups and just get in there.

Keep in mind, the people that tried to derail that thread were entirely the anti-easy mode types who insisted on discussing

"should"

there be an easy mode, rather than engaging in the "how" discussion. It had nothing to do with the pro-easy mode participants, who were trying to engage in good faith.

I see derailment by you personally there. Responding to a question "should they exist?" contributes in derailment the same way (or even more because it starts a discussion) as asking the question. You don't have to respond to every question sometimes let it die is the best option.

I have never agreed with that line of thinking. If someone else steers the conversation off track, sanction that person, never those who follow. You can sometimes report such posts to moderators, but they may do nothing about it, or if they do it may take several days, or cause them to sanction you instead. Getting the moderators involved is rarely a good idea.

"Making raids

accessible

to the majority does not mean that the majority would play it, or that it would be a failed program if they did not. The point of accessibility is to make it so that those that

want to

have a better path to do so. People who choose not to, that's fine too.

So the big question then comes, how many will actually play this easy mode.

Enough.

I can even go further and say that someone that doesn't run other instanced content (like dungeons and fractals) won't run the easy mode Raids either,

You could, but that would be faulty logic, so you probably shouldn't.

which leads to a very small percentage of the actual population. Keep this in mind next time you talk about how easy it is to implement. Implementation difficulty depends heavily on the number of people the content applies to.

How so? I can understand how you might argue that implementation value would depend on the eventual audience, but why "difficulty?"

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Because again, the idea is to make it casual-friendly, whatever tools you bring (within reason), should be good enough. Not the most efficient, but good enough. If you put out an LFG, and ten people show up, none of whom has a boon stripping ability, then that group should still be able to run the content, without having to kick anyone and put out a specific request. The whole point is to not wait around forming groups and just get in there.

Casual friendly means not-flexible? Casual friendly means "no longer requiring teamwork and team composition? Good to know. In reality, the rest of the game needs to get on track and add more requirements, not remove requirements from content that has them. The player needs to adapt, not the content.

So the big question then comes, how many will actually play this easy mode.Enough.

You don't know that. In fact data suggests otherwise.

I can even go further and say that someone that doesn't run other instanced content (like dungeons and fractals) won't run the easy mode Raids either,

You could, but that would be faulty logic, so you probably shouldn't.

How so? Those that don't run dungeons and fractals won't run an easy mode for Raids either. I see absolutely no reason why the opposite might be even remotely true. Those that don't like small scale instanced group content won't bother with large scale instanced content. I don't think that requires further explanation.

which leads to a very small percentage of the actual population. Keep this in mind next time you talk about how easy it is to implement. Implementation difficulty depends heavily on the number of people the content applies to.

How so? I can understand how you might argue that implementation

value

would depend on the eventual audience, but why "difficulty?"

True. I meant value not difficulty, the difficulty of implementation doesn't depend on the audience at all.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Casual friendly means not-flexible? Casual friendly means "no longer requiring teamwork and team composition? Good to know. In reality, the rest of the game needs to get on track and add more requirements, not remove requirements from content that has them. The player needs to adapt, not the content.

Wrong game.

You don't know that. In fact data suggests otherwise.

Still enough.

How so? Those that don't run dungeons and fractals won't run an easy mode for Raids either.

Why not? Can you tell how many people would complete a new Jumping Puzzle by how many completed Steamy Steps or Conundrum Cubed? Can you tell how many people would complete a new story chapter by how many people completed Season 2? I'm sure that a lot of people who play an easy mode raid will have played dungeon content at some point in the past (however far they got in it), but that isn't necessarily the entire audience. A player could just right into casual raids without setting foot into a story dungeon before. The potential audience is "all the players."

Those that don't like small scale instanced group content won't bother with large scale instanced content. I don't think that requires further explanation.

Further explanation certainly wouldn't make it less wrong.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Wrong game.

No the game is the correct one, it's some players that think they are in the wrong game.

Why not? Can you tell how many people would complete a new Jumping Puzzle by how many completed Steamy Steps or Conundrum Cubed? Can you tell how many people would complete a new story chapter by how many people completed Season 2? I'm sure that a lot of people who play an easy mode raid will have played dungeon content at some point in the past (however far they got in it), but that isn't necessarily the entire audience. A player could just right into casual raids without setting foot into a story dungeon before. The potential audience is "all the players."

I can certainly tell how many people will be interested in a new jumping puzzle by seeing how many finished the entry level ones, the easiest ones. A player that hasn't finished Under New Management in Southsun Cove won't go and finish Chalice of Tears. There is an entire game mode in the game (Super Adventure Box) that was created to cater to a group of players that like Jumping Puzzles. Do you honestly believe that SAB would exist in the game if nobody was running the Jumping Puzzles?

Thaumanova Reactor Fractal was added for the Fractal audience, not to bring new players in, it's really sad to think that players that never run Fractals would be interested in it. Same goes for Aetherpath in Twilight Arbor, it was also made for the core audience of Dungeons and not to bring new players in. The rewards might entice new players to try the content, but if they don't like the type in the first place, they won't like the new content either. This "potential audience is all the players" is an absolute fallacy that has zero arguments to back it up.

[Ohoni.6057]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Wrong game.

No the game is the correct one, it's some players that think they are in the wrong game.

Seriously, this game built itself on "come as you are and enjoy the game" content. "The player needs to adapt, not the content." has been antithetical to what makes this game a success.

Why not? Can you tell how many people would complete a new Jumping Puzzle by how many completed Steamy Steps or Conundrum Cubed? Can you tell how many people would complete a new story chapter by how many people completed Season 2? I'm sure that a lot of people who play an easy mode raid will have played dungeon content at some point in the past (however far they got in it), but that isn't necessarily the

entire

audience. A player could just right into casual raids without setting foot into a story dungeon before. The potential audience is

"all

the players."

I can certainly tell how many people will be interested in a new jumping puzzle by seeing how many finished the entry level ones, the easiest ones. A player that hasn't finished Under New Management in Southsun Cove won't go and finish Chalice of Tears.

I would wager you good money that there are players who have done exactly that.

There is an entire game mode in the game (Super Adventure Box) that was created to cater to a group of players that like Jumping Puzzles. Do you honestly believe that SAB would exist in the game if nobody was running the Jumping Puzzles?

If nobody did Jumping puzzles? Maybe not. But they invented Tribulation mode, and almost nobody wanted that. And again, I'm sure there are players who have spent a decent amount of time in SAB that have not cleared a bunch of other JP content. Again, people do the content they do, "not doing content X" is not an indication that they definitely wouldn't do content Y, no matter how similar the two might be.

Thaumanova Reactor Fractal was added for the Fractal audience, not to bring new players in, it's really sad to think that players that never run Fractals would be interested in it.

Again, it's quite likely that people have played that one that have not done a ton of other Fractal stuff, just because they wanted to explore that particular environment.

Same goes for Aetherpath in Twilight Arbor, it was also made for the core audience of Dungeons and not to bring new players in. The rewards might entice new players to try the content, but if they don't like the type in the first place, they won't like the new content either. This "potential audience is all the players" is an absolute fallacy that has zero arguments to back it up.

You keep highlighting "hard modes," content that goes above and beyond the existing stuff. We're talking about an easy mode, one that expands the pool beyond the existing scale.

[CptAurellian.9537]

@Nimon.7840 said:What would be the rewards? If you make a boss much easier, you have to give less rewards.The very classic rewards of this game: Two blues, a green :)