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

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said: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.

Not really. The game always had dungeons that you can't really beat "coming as you are". Even some open world events require more specific builds to succeed, just because in the open world some can hide and get the rewards by pressing 1 on their keyboard on sub-optimal terrible builds, doesn't mean everyone running the content is doing that. In fact, if everyone was like that, those harder open world bosses would simply fail. It's because there are some players that adapt that events succeed in the first place.

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

That's highly unlikely, if not impossible. Unless we are talking about players getting portals instead, that might work, but getting portals isn't the same as running it (and liking it).

But they invented Tribulation mode, and almost nobody wanted that.

Now you are joking I'm sure. Or you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

Again, false.

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.

I keep highlighting how the harder mode content (harder JPs, harder dungeons) weren't going to be run by players who didn't run the easier modes first, which was the entire point that you keep missing. The pool that runs jumping puzzles will be those that will run future jumping puzzles, the pool that runs instanced content will run future instanced content. The pool that runs the easier instanced content will run the harder instanced content. I don't really understand how this is a matter of debate.

[Blaeys.3102]

It is good to see the poll numbers supporting points that many of us have been making for years (seems weird, but yes, years) now.

I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

[nia.4725]

@Blaeys.3102 said:It is good to see the poll numbers supporting points that many of us have been making for years (seems weird, but yes, years) now.

I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

Pro-easy mode

We need both easy and hard modes: 294 votesWe need an easy mode, but not a hard mode: 41 votes

Non-pro easy mode

We need a hard mode, but not an easy mode: 48 votesRaids are fine the way they are, combining bosses of various difficulties: 198 votes

Neither:

Raids have problems, but we need a better solution: 50 votes

Total pro-easy mode: 335Total non pro-easy mode: 246

Do you really think that 89 votes really show that the majority of players want an easy mode? The difference in votes is little, this doesn't support your point. Also everyone can access the raiding forum, not just raiders. Yeah sure raiders read it more often but I'm sure non raiders take a look at it sometimes, so it's very possible that some people opened it and just voted even if they don't raid. Moreover you have to remember that the GW2 forums does not mean the GW2 players.

[Blaeys.3102]

@nia.4725 said:

@"Blaeys.3102" said:It is good to see the poll numbers supporting points that many of us have been making for years (seems weird, but yes, years) now.

I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

Pro-easy mode

We need both easy and hard modes: 294 votesWe need an easy mode, but not a hard mode: 41 votes

Non-pro easy mode

We need a hard mode, but not an easy mode: 48 votesRaids are fine the way they are, combining bosses of various difficulties: 198 votes

Neither:

Raids have problems, but we need a better solution: 50 votes

Total pro-easy mode: 335Total non pro-easy mode: 246

Do you really think that 89 votes really show that the majority of players want an easy mode? The difference in votes is little, this doesn't support your point. Also everyone can access the raiding forum, not just raiders. Yeah sure raiders read it more often but I'm sure non raiders take a look at it sometimes, so it's very possible that some people opened it and just voted even if they don't raid. Moreover you have to remember that the GW2 forums does not mean the GW2 players.

Again it is a small sample size, but among that sample size, we are looking at a nine percent difference (approximately 60% of responders in favor of this kind of change).

While that isn't huge, it is statistically significant - and, more importantly, completely invalidates the argument that the community is "just fine" with the way raids are now (even more so when you add in the neither, who obviously want something different). Considering this poll was conducted on the raiding subforum, where you will see little to no input from those who have already written raiding off as a lost cause, I think you can definitely draw some conclusions from this data.

At best, you can say the community is significantly split on this issue - which, by itself, warrants ArenaNet's attention and possible action. If the poll here is even 50% inaccurate (meaning a hypothetical 30 percent of the total population want this change), then Anet has to recognize that raids need to be changed in some way. The margins we are looking at here should be way passed acceptable.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Blaeys.3102 said:I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

What we DO know is that they are considering a hard mode for Raids (edit: meaning repeatable CMs) and from an older post a way for all players to experience the STORY of the Raids (not an actual easy mode). Those are what they are debating internally at the moment, we might get either one, both, or none of the above, but it IS what is under consideration at this point.Honestly, I doubt they will discuss or debate something else, at least until those two are out of the way.

[Brynioch.1873]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Blaeys.3102 said:I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

What we DO know is that they are considering a hard mode for Raids and from an older post a way for all players to experience the STORY of the Raids (not an actual easy mode). Those are what they are debating internally at the moment, we might get either one, both, or none of the above, but it IS what is under consideration at this point.Honestly, I doubt they will discuss or debate something else, at least until those two are out of the way.

No they are not considering a hard mode. For the same reason an easy mode would be bad. It would split the playerbase. This is the same reason why challenge motes don't have repeatable rewards. In fact they are happy with the current state of raids.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Blaeys.3102" said:I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

What we DO know is that they are considering a hard mode for Raids and from an older post a way for all players to experience the STORY of the Raids (not an actual easy mode). Those are what they are debating internally at the moment, we might get either one, both, or none of the above, but it IS what is under consideration at this point.Honestly, I doubt they will discuss or debate something else, at least until those two are out of the way.

No they are not considering a hard mode. For the same reason an easy mode would be bad. It would split the playerbase. This is the same reason why challenge motes don't have repeatable rewards. In fact they are happy with the current state of raids.

Sigh...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8gpfac/the_game_have_never_been_better_and_still_i_play/dye2dsr/

Speaking for Raids, I will say this much: the reason we don't allow CM to be repeatable is because we don't want to splinter the player base. Two different play modes will send all of the "elite" players to CM, leaving "normal" mode as less desirable. I'm not happy with how we originally introduced CM, and I continue to not be happy with how we implement it. There has to be a better way.I am looking into options for a more appealing alternative. There are a few ideas, some of which that have been proposed by the community, but it takes time to not just hem and haw over the decision (and get approvals from the powers that be), but also to properly implement it. It's not as simple as changing a line of code and BAM, it's all changed and ready to ship. It's thousands of content objects, potentially custom code, scripts that all need to interact properly, then doing this across all of the existing content, and testing it to find and fix dem bugs.All that to say: we hear you on the Raid CM front, and we're exploring options.

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Blaeys.3102" said:I know it is a small sample size, but given that the poll is on the raiding subforums - where you would expect the hardcore raiders to have the loudest voice - I think it is telling and worthy of Anet's attention and consideration (even if their past plans did not involve considering this action - plans can, and should change when it is obvious that change is wanted).

What we DO know is that they are considering a hard mode for Raids and from an older post a way for all players to experience the STORY of the Raids (not an actual easy mode). Those are what they are debating internally at the moment, we might get either one, both, or none of the above, but it IS what is under consideration at this point.Honestly, I doubt they will discuss or debate something else, at least until those two are out of the way.

No they are not considering a hard mode. For the same reason an easy mode would be bad. It would split the playerbase. This is the same reason why challenge motes don't have repeatable rewards. In fact they are happy with the current state of raids.

Sigh...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8gpfac/the_game_have_never_been_better_and_still_i_play/dye2dsr/

Speaking for Raids, I will say this much: the reason we don't allow CM to be repeatable is because we don't want to splinter the player base. Two different play modes will send all of the "elite" players to CM, leaving "normal" mode as less desirable. I'm not happy with how we originally introduced CM, and I continue to not be happy with how we implement it. There has to be a better way.I am looking into options for a more appealing alternative. There are a few ideas, some of which that have been proposed by the community, but it takes time to not just hem and haw over the decision (and get approvals from the powers that be), but also to properly implement it. It's not as simple as changing a line of code and BAM, it's all changed and ready to ship. It's thousands of content objects, potentially custom code, scripts that all need to interact properly, then doing this across all of the existing content, and testing it to find and fix dem bugs.All that to say: we hear you on the Raid CM front, and we're exploring options.

Miellyn is correct.

What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

That's what I understand from his post. The raiding community has been asking continously Anet to make CMs repeatable (very common topic in reddit), but we haven't been asking for more CMs.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"nia.4725" said:What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

Repeatable CMs ARE hard mode...

[Brynioch.1873]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"nia.4725" said:What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

Repeatable CMs ARE hard mode...

But it is something completley different to hard modes. Challenge motes already exist and are likely planned for future encounters. Hard mode implies the development of something new.

[nia.4725]

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"nia.4725" said:What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

Repeatable CMs ARE hard mode...

But it is something completley different to hard modes. Challenge motes already exist and are likely planned for future encounters. Hard mode implies the development of something new.

Yeah, the thing is that saying "anet is planning giving us hard mode" is misleading because it makes people believe they are going to create new hard modes, when they aren't. They're just looking for a way to give us incentives to replay the existing ones.

[maddoctor.2738]

@nia.4725 said:

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

Repeatable CMs ARE hard mode...

But it is something completley different to hard modes. Challenge motes already exist and are likely planned for future encounters. Hard mode implies the development of something new.

Yeah, the thing is that saying "anet is planning giving us hard mode" is misleading because it makes people believe they are going to create new hard modes, when they aren't. They're just looking for a way to give us incentives to replay the existing ones.

From the quote:Two different play modes will send all of the "elite" players to CM, leaving "normal" mode as less desirable.

Even the developers are calling them separate modes but anyway I can see where the misunderstanding comes. What I meant as "hard mode" was "repeatable CMs" not entirely new content, CMs aren't a "mode" now because they are not repeatable. Once they are repeatable they will become a new game mode. Sorry for the confusion.

[Brynioch.1873]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@Miellyn.6847 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:What Jason says there is that they're exploring ways of making the CMs repeatable, not creating new hard modes. When he says "different play modes" he refers to the existing CMs being not what they're now -a CM you do once or twice-, but a play mode played more often like the CMs would be if they were repeatable.

Repeatable CMs ARE hard mode...

But it is something completley different to hard modes. Challenge motes already exist and are likely planned for future encounters. Hard mode implies the development of something new.

Yeah, the thing is that saying "anet is planning giving us hard mode" is misleading because it makes people believe they are going to create new hard modes, when they aren't. They're just looking for a way to give us incentives to replay the existing ones.

From the quote:

Two

different play

modes

will send all of the "elite" players to CM, leaving "normal" mode as less desirable.

Even the developers are calling them separate

modes

but anyway I can see where the misunderstanding comes. What I meant as "hard mode" was "repeatable CMs" not entirely new content, CMs aren't a "mode" now because they are not repeatable. Once they are repeatable they will become a new game mode. Sorry for the confusion.

It will end up likely like fractal cms. Groups that do them every time and groups that don't or only some of them.But you need to keep in mind Ohoni is reading this thread so we need to stick to terms for available mechanics or he thinks the change to rewards of already existing challenge motes justifies an easy mode...

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@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.

@maddoctor.2738 said: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.The game is for the players, not the players for the game. The developer that designs content first (without considering their players) and then tries to persuade playerbase to like it is not going to stay succesful very long.

@maddoctor.2738 said:You don't know that. In fact data suggests otherwise.I tend to disagree with you on your interpretation of that data. And I already answered why.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Astralporing.1957 said:The game is for the players, not the players for the game. The developer that designs content first (without considering their players) and then tries to persuade playerbase to like it is not going to stay succesful very long.

I guess they've been doing it wrong since November 2012

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@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.

Huh. The whole traitsystem and skill selection system is build for adaptability. And gear is fairly easy to obtain. GW2 is building on the whole player actually can adapt easier opposed to most other MMOs. That the max level is stayed the same is another of those points that makes it easier to adapt instead of finding new gear the whole time.

I dont see how GW2 is antithetical to player adaptation, in fact a gw2 player is asked to adapt more often than not. The existence of various encouners throughout the games history just proves that.

[Ohoni.6057]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

I would wager you good money that there are players who have [beaten chalice of tears without first beating under new management].

That's highly unlikely, if not impossible. Unless we are talking about players getting portals instead, that might work, but getting portals isn't the same as running it (and liking it).

There's nothing that says you need to do them in any particular order. A player could easily have become aware of CoT due to when and how he got into the game, and just never even bothered going to Southsun Cove.

I keep highlighting how the harder mode content (harder JPs, harder dungeons) weren't going to be run by players who didn't run the easier modes first, which was the entire point that you keep missing.

But again, that is not necessarily true, if the easier content was not a hard coded pre-requisite for the harder. There are likely people who played PoF without completing, or even playing HoT. There are likely players that cleared higher tier dungeons without first doing any of the easier ones. Players often do jump right into specific content that catches their interest, while passing over similar content that is "easier." Hell, if there are any prerequisites here, it would be that the raid encounters all happen in a specific order, wing 1.1 through 5.4, and yet plenty of people on these threads actually advocate skipping the first six encounters for new players!

@"nia.4725" said:Do you really think that 89 votes really show that the majority of players want an easy mode?

No, but 338 out of 636 IS a majority in favor of having easy modes, and at minimum it's a strong plurality of views. Remember "we need both easy and hard mode" is not somehow a vote against easy mode. Anyone definitely opposed to an easy mode could have voted in the "hard only" or "no change" camp.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@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.

@maddoctor.2738 said: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.The game is for the players, not the players for the game. The developer that designs content first (without considering their players) and then tries to persuade playerbase to like it is not going to stay succesful very long.

But if that were true then Lawbreakers wouldn't have been such a massive success.

@FrizzFreston.5290 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@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.

Huh. The whole traitsystem and skill selection system is build for adaptability. And gear is fairly easy to obtain. GW2 is building on the whole player actually can adapt easier opposed to most other MMOs. That the max level is stayed the same is another of those points that makes it easier to adapt instead of finding new gear the whole time.

I dont see how GW2 is antithetical to player adaptation, in fact a gw2 player is asked to adapt more often than not. The existence of various encouners throughout the games history just proves that.

Their system allows for a lot of flexibility, in order to allow players to adopt different playstyles, to have more varied and interesting play experiences. But part of that is that the content can't expect a certain specific build, because doing so constricts those possibilities. What is the point of having dozens of traits if only one or two combinations of them are "worthy" of being used? The content can't force players to adapt to it, the content has to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of player choices, otherwise those player choices become illusory.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@FrizzFreston.5290 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@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.

Huh. The whole traitsystem and skill selection system is build for adaptability. And gear is fairly easy to obtain. GW2 is building on the whole player actually can adapt easier opposed to most other MMOs. That the max level is stayed the same is another of those points that makes it easier to adapt instead of finding new gear the whole time.

I dont see how GW2 is antithetical to player adaptation, in fact a gw2 player is asked to adapt more often than not. The existence of various encouners throughout the games history just proves that.

Their system

allows

for a lot of flexibility, in order to

allow

players to adopt different playstyles, to have more varied and interesting play experiences. But part of that is that the content can't

expect

a certain specific build, because doing so constricts those possibilities. What is the point of having dozens of traits if only one or two combinations of them are "worthy" of being used? The content can't force players to adapt to it, the content has to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of player choices, otherwise those player choices become illusory.

There is no such rule where the content can't or shouldnt incentivize adaptation. In fact, most if not all games are entirely build on how much a player can adapt to a situation.

This is by no means an argument against an easymode, because the goal can entirely be to adapt a players time schedule to the fastest easiest route and offering that choice. In a way players would have to adapt less to the mechanics and more to devoting their time to a specific piece of content or simply to the fact that its not as rewarding. Ofcourse the content can equally focus players to adapt and figure out how to get past. Player preferences apply as usual.

Either way, allowing players to adapt easier still means my original comment stands. GW2 is not antithetical to player adaptation. That doesnt mean players should be required to always adapt either. Alot of the content has leeway build in ofcourse. But theres alot of occasions where this isnt the case. Breakbar mechanics, condition vulnerable foes, skritt running away, enemies with lots of projectiles. If you as a player dont adapt at the situation your facing in any game and just brute force your way through, you will possibly have a terrible time.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"FrizzFreston.5290" said:Either way, allowing players to adapt easier still means my original comment stands. GW2 is not antithetical to player adaptation.

My point was it was antithetical to requiring players to adapt in order to overcome the content. It would give you choices and respect the choice you made, rather than punishing you for it. It's like giving people a choice of shirts, red, green, or blue, and then after they choose, say "sorry, only people with red shirts are allowed in, you'll have to change." No, for a choice to actually count as a choice, the content needs to adapt to the choices made. If they didn't want a player to make that choice then it shouldn't have been offered in the first place.

If you as a player dont adapt at the situation your facing in any game and just brute force your way through, you will possibly have a terrible time.

And my stance on that is that it's fine for the hard mode to do that, but the hard mode should not be the only version available. The easy mode should reward adapting to the situation, doing so should create a smoother and faster result than not, but if the player is unwilling or unable to adapt, it should never be a hard barrier to success, brute forcing it should be an inefficient, but still possible option.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Ohoni.6057 said:There's nothing that says you need to do them in any particular order. A player could easily have become aware of CoT due to when and how he got into the game, and just never even bothered going to Southsun Cove.

That's impossible to even imagine. If he didn't go to Southsun Cove he would've gone to King Jalis Refugee or any of the other easier jumping puzzles. Unless they started playing at the exact moment CoT was released, but even then, if they liked CoT they'd go to finish the other JPs too. And if they didn't like CoT they won't touch the other JPs either. It's not such a hard concept do understand, but if you really want to continue ignoring basic common sense I'd ask you to provide indisputable proofs of your false claims.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"maddoctor.2738" said:That's impossible to even imagine. If he didn't go to Southsun Cove he would've gone to King Jalis Refugee or any of the other easier jumping puzzles.

Maybe, but that's moving the goalposts, you said that he'd have to do Under New Management before Chalice of Tears. Even if you do move the goalpost to "some other JP," it's still possible that he just never did any other JPs, and circumstances put him in range of CoT, like he had just started playing around when Ember Bay came out, used his 80 boost to be at that zone, had friends that were urging him along and invited him to the map, and followed them along up the puzzle. That certainly wouldn't be the average experience, but I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it was at least one players' experience. Obviously "skipping dungeons right into raiding" is far more likely.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Maybe, but that's moving the goalposts, you said that he'd have to do Under New Management before Chalice of Tears. Even if you do move the goalpost to "some other JP," it's still possible that he just never did any other JPs, and circumstances put him in range of CoT, like he had just started playing around when Ember Bay came out, used his 80 boost to be at that zone, had friends that were urging him along and invited him to the map, and followed them along up the puzzle. That certainly wouldn't be the average experience, but I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it was at least one players' experience. Obviously "skipping dungeons right into raiding" is far more likely.

Right and this imaginary person that you describe is such a high percentage of the population that is even worth discussing. I'm sorry but even if this player does exist (which is highly unlikely anyway) they are a tiny insignificant part. "Skipping dungeons right into raiding" is also an impossibility.And besides, let's say he did start with CoT, what happened then? If he enjoyed CoT he'd go play the other JPs too, if he didn't like CoT then he won't go and play the other JPs either, so your point is moot.

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Maybe, but that's moving the goalposts, you said that he'd

have

to do Under New Management before Chalice of Tears. Even if you do move the goalpost to "some other JP," it's still possible that he just never did any other JPs, and circumstances put him in range of CoT, like he had just started playing around when Ember Bay came out, used his 80 boost to be at that zone, had friends that were urging him along and invited him to the map, and followed them along up the puzzle. That certainly wouldn't be the average experience, but I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it was at least one players' experience. Obviously "skipping dungeons right into raiding" is far more likely.

Right and this imaginary person that you describe is such a high percentage of the population that is even worth discussing. I'm sorry but even if this player does exist (which is highly unlikely anyway) they are a tiny insignificant part. "Skipping dungeons right into raiding" is also an impossibility.And besides, let's say he did start with CoT, what happened then? If he enjoyed CoT he'd go play the other JPs too, if he didn't like CoT then he won't go and play the other JPs either, so your point is moot.

It's not an impossibility. It's a little possibility that won't happen much, but it's not an impossibility. A member of my static got into GW2 because a friend insisted on it, and because that friend is primarily a raider, she got straight into raids. She didn't experience anything else before jumping into them.

This, however, doesn't mean Ohoni is right. And I also think it's true that if you didn't like CoT, you probably won't do more JP.

[maddoctor.2738]

@nia.4725 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Maybe, but that's moving the goalposts, you said that he'd

have

to do Under New Management before Chalice of Tears. Even if you do move the goalpost to "some other JP," it's still possible that he just never did any other JPs, and circumstances put him in range of CoT, like he had just started playing around when Ember Bay came out, used his 80 boost to be at that zone, had friends that were urging him along and invited him to the map, and followed them along up the puzzle. That certainly wouldn't be the average experience, but I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it was at least one players' experience. Obviously "skipping dungeons right into raiding" is far more likely.

Right and this imaginary person that you describe is such a high percentage of the population that is even worth discussing. I'm sorry but even if this player does exist (which is highly unlikely anyway) they are a tiny insignificant part. "Skipping dungeons right into raiding" is also an impossibility.And besides, let's say he did start with CoT, what happened then? If he enjoyed CoT he'd go play the other JPs too, if he didn't like CoT then he won't go and play the other JPs either, so your point is moot.

It's not an impossibility. It's a little possibility that won't happen much, but it's not an impossibility. A member of my static got into GW2 because a friend insisted on it, and because that friend is primarily a raider, she got straight into raids. She didn't experience anything else before jumping into them.

This, however, doesn't mean Ohoni is right. And I also think it's true that if you didn't like CoT, you probably won't do more JP.

You are right, I guess people getting "dragged" into Raids is a possibility I didn't consider, but the rest of your static didn't start with Raids right?Meaning, even for your friend that was dragged into Raids without playing the rest of the instanced content, someone else (the one that dragged her) did.So without the rest of the group liking the entry tier instanced content, and then moving to Raids, your friend wouldn't be raiding either.A small exception to the rule.

[nia.4725]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@nia.4725 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Maybe, but that's moving the goalposts, you said that he'd

have

to do Under New Management before Chalice of Tears. Even if you do move the goalpost to "some other JP," it's still possible that he just never did any other JPs, and circumstances put him in range of CoT, like he had just started playing around when Ember Bay came out, used his 80 boost to be at that zone, had friends that were urging him along and invited him to the map, and followed them along up the puzzle. That certainly wouldn't be the average experience, but I wouldn't consider it unlikely that it was at least one players' experience. Obviously "skipping dungeons right into raiding" is far more likely.

Right and this imaginary person that you describe is such a high percentage of the population that is even worth discussing. I'm sorry but even if this player does exist (which is highly unlikely anyway) they are a tiny insignificant part. "Skipping dungeons right into raiding" is also an impossibility.And besides, let's say he did start with CoT, what happened then? If he enjoyed CoT he'd go play the other JPs too, if he didn't like CoT then he won't go and play the other JPs either, so your point is moot.

It's not an impossibility. It's a little possibility that won't happen much, but it's not an impossibility. A member of my static got into GW2 because a friend insisted on it, and because that friend is primarily a raider, she got straight into raids. She didn't experience anything else before jumping into them.

This, however, doesn't mean Ohoni is right. And I also think it's true that if you didn't like CoT, you probably won't do more JP.

You are right, I guess people getting "dragged" into Raids is a possibility I didn't consider, but the rest of your static didn't start with Raids right?Meaning, even for your friend that was dragged into Raids without playing the rest of the instanced content, someone else (the one that dragged her) did.So without the rest of the group liking the entry tier instanced content, and then moving to Raids, your friend wouldn't be raiding either.A small exception to the rule.

Yep, that's true indeed. The rest did some dungeons and fractals. I got into T4 fracs around the same time I got into raids. At that moment in time I had run some dungeons, not a lot, but some.