No strikes at all in JW?

[Raizel.1839]

I know we're getting raid and convergence but strikes had become my favourite and most played pve content. It's sad if JW will have none.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

No Strikes this time; a new Raid instead.

 

[Gehenna.3625]

6 hours ago, Raizel.1839 said:

I know we're getting raid and convergence but strikes had become my favourite and most played pve content. It's sad if JW will have none.

It would seem strikes weren't as successful as they hoped. So apparently, you find yourself if a minority that's sad about it. It sucks for you and I do empathize but that's where it's at.

[Omega.6801]

This may come as a surprise to you but...and don't tell this around as it could make some people really mad...but a Raid is just three Strikes in a trenchcoat.

[Astralporing.1957]

They practically said that Strikes failed. They apparently did not result in more casual players getting interested in higher difficulty content. Nor did they really replace raids for the raid community either. We don't know if the easier IBS strikes brought with them enough player interest in low difficulty instanced 10-man content, but even if they did, clearly that's not what Anet was interested in at all.

So, it seems they are abandoning strikes, and making one more push into reviving raids (even though this time they aren't as hopeful about their success as they were once). If they succeed, they will follow up with their new model. If they fail (as is more likely)... who knows? But i wouldn't be so sure about them just going back to strikes. It'd be more likely they'd either try to reinvent the wheel again, or throw the towel completely.

[Teknomancer.4895]

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

If they fail (as is more likely)... who knows? But i wouldn't be so sure about them just going back to strikes. It'd be more likely they'd either try to reinvent the wheel again, or throw the towel completely.

Don't forget dungeons, that's one that they haven't tinkered with for a while. It likely wouldn't work out either, but since when has that stopped them?

[Gehenna.3625]

8 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

They practically said that Strikes failed. They apparently did not result in more casual players getting interested in higher difficulty content. Nor did they really replace raids for the raid community either. We don't know if the easier IBS strikes brought with them enough player interest in low difficulty instanced 10-man content, but even if they did, clearly that's not what Anet was interested in at all.

Well, I also argued before Strikes came out that their goal of getting more casual players into instanced group content would fail. I didn't have a crystal ball but to me it was blatantly obvious that they misjudged what casual players want and don't want especially. It still baffles me to this day that they thought that goal could be met.

8 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

So, it seems they are abandoning strikes, and making one more push into reviving raids (even though this time they aren't as hopeful about their success as they were once). If they succeed, they will follow up with their new model. If they fail (as is more likely)... who knows? But i wouldn't be so sure about them just going back to strikes. It'd be more likely they'd either try to reinvent the wheel again, or throw the towel completely.

They persisted with 3 rounds of Strikes before they changed their MO. I think it's mostly raiders that were doing Strikes regularly so they'll be very happy with this change back to raids. Personally, I hope Anet will be successful this time and will be able to keep going with raids. I don't raid in GW2 but I did in SWTOR for a long time and I think it's important to have raid content for an MMO.

If it fails, they might just try to keep up the Convergence format, but hopefully they can maintain both going forward.

[Sobx.1758]

On 8/1/2024 at 1:14 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

It would seem strikes weren't as successful as they hoped. So apparently, you find yourself if a minority that's sad about it. It sucks for you and I do empathize but that's where it's at.

That sure doesn't sound correct at all, even if we only take into consideration the upcoming raid is basically following the pattern of how the strikes are implemented (so they are plucked out of the story, rescaled to 10 players and have some mechanics added to fit the group play). It seems to be more of a "we kept making 10 player group content, but some people still wanted raids, so we'll now do raids [basically strikes] with bosses being connected by some fillers/npc rp and see if that's good enough".

[kiroho.4738]

On 8/1/2024 at 1:14 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

It would seem strikes weren't as successful as they hoped.

That's a weird supposion and doesn't fit what we can see in the game and what Anet said at all.

I mean, originally Strikes were introduced as a ramp between open world / dungeons and raids. To get more people into raids as they are so unpopular.

After IBS it turned out that Strikes actually are much more popular than Raids, so instead of builing the ramp for Raids, Anet practically replaced Raids with Strikes. Both EoD and Soto strikes are pretty popular, especially since all of them have a challenge mode.

To think Strikes not being popular is the reason Raids return, doesn't really fit.

 

However, what changed now is that Anet learned from Strikes.
Before they put many ressources into Raids. They created whole maps, new bosses with new mechanics, new stories etc. Literally everything in a Raid was new.
Now with Strikes Anet got rid of a huge portion of this work by reusing story bosses.
They could focus on mechanics, while almost everything else was already done.

And with the upcoming raid, they do this too. Or at least to some degree.
They don't put the work into the Raid alone, but use it for Convergence as well.
The effect is similar, more content for less work. And more players who actually see/play what the devs created. Unlike old Raids where the difficulty kept most players away.

[Ashantara.8731]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

They practically said that Strikes failed.

Where? I am seeing plenty of players doing Strikes daily. I am one of them.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

Where? I am seeing plenty of players doing Strikes daily. I am one of them.

Well, they did say that "only a small subset of players engage with the 10-player group instanced content" in the Raids blog. And that after trying to push Strikes as a bridge content, they decided to rather try supply players with the content they want. It may not be direct admission, but as indirect one seems quite clear to me.

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, kiroho.4738 said:

That's a weird supposion and doesn't fit what we can see in the game and what Anet said at all.

I mean, originally Strikes were introduced as a ramp between open world / dungeons and raids. To get more people into raids as they are so unpopular.

After IBS it turned out that Strikes actually are much more popular than Raids, so instead of builing the ramp for Raids, Anet practically replaced Raids with Strikes. Both EoD and Soto strikes are pretty popular, especially since all of them have a challenge mode.

To think Strikes not being popular is the reason Raids return, doesn't really fit.

I didn't say the weren't popular but I was referring to their goal for strikes to serve as a ramp and that was unsuccessful. However, Anet did state that "only a small subset of players engage with the 10-player group instanced content". Please note it doesn't say raids but 10-player group instanced content. So you may find people doing Strikes regularly but that's anecdotal evidence. Anet says clearly says that it's not a big group of players. If you read this blog further, you'll see what I'm talking about.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-return-of-raiding-and-convergences-in-janthir-wilds/

 

[Sobx.1758]

22 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

They practically said that Strikes failed.

17 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Well, they did say that "only a small subset of players engage with the 10-player group instanced content" in the Raids blog. And that after trying to push Strikes as a bridge content, they decided to rather try supply players with the content they want. It may not be direct admission, but as indirect one seems quite clear to me.

There's a point at which the bridge reaches the other side though, which usually means the bridge ends and that doesn't exactly mean that the bridge failed, so your concluded "indirect admission" isn't that. "They practically say it!", except that not really.

[Astralporing.1957]

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

There's a point at which the bridge reaches the other side though, which usually means the bridge ends and that doesn't exactly mean that the bridge failed, so your concluded "indirect admission" isn't that. "They practically say it!", except that not really.

From what they said about strikes, it seemsthat even though a bridge was made, people still decided to stay on the side they preferred before and weren't using it to cross at all. They also said that "only a small subset of players engage with the 10-player group instanced content". Which does include strikes.

And of course the greatest sign lies in them not making more strikes. If the bridge worked, they'd have doubled down on it after reitroducing raids, instead of dropping it and trying a completely different approach.

[Sobx.1758]

14 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

From what they said about strikes, it seemsthat even though a bridge was made, people still decided to stay on the side they preferred before and weren't using it to cross at all.
(...)
And of course the greatest sign lies in them not making more strikes. If the bridge worked, they'd have doubled down on it after reitroducing raids

But that's not really what they said and you specifically said yourself that we don't know if they brought enough player interest. You just concluded that "the bridge ended so the bridge failed", but that's literally -and figuratively!- not how "bridges" work. It still looks you're drawing conclusions not based on "what they [practically] said', but based on what narrative you want to have here. Meanwhile for all we know, the upcoming raid will follow pretty much exactly the current strike pattern except it will have some fillers/npc rp added inbetween the encounters.

[Krzysztof.5973]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:22 PM, kiroho.4738 said:

Now with Strikes Anet got rid of a huge portion of this work by reusing story bosses.
They could focus on mechanics, while almost everything else was already done.

Let's see how focusing on mechanics and quality control turns out *wink wink*  😏

[kiroho.4738]

21 hours ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

Let's see how focusing on mechanics and quality control turns out *wink wink*  😏

I mean, it worked for IBS, EoD and Soto so far.

Edited August 5 by kiroho.4738
typo

[Krzysztof.5973]

1 hour ago, kiroho.4738 said:

I mean, it worked for IBS, EoD and Soto so far.

Yes, everybody was infatuated with CO CM and LCM for TOFCM was definitely intended and the strike was not bugged at all. And new 100CM is in wonderful shape right now. Great quality, very high quality control. 
Bonus meme

[Cyninja.2954]

Different issues being lumped together.

1. Strikes as introductory content to instanced content.

Result: works rather well. IBS strikes make for great 10 man content to work on, especially the easier ones. Strikes cover an entire range of difficulty and even surpass current raids.

 

2. Getting more players to be interested in other 10 man content (aka raids).

Result: obviously failed. Officially confirmed. Completely omitted the fact that you need a specific mindset and interest to raid in the first place. The majority of players playing strikes are established raiders.

 

3. Streamline and cost reduction.

Result: successful. Also likely the primary goal here. Reusing assets should cut the cost of developing instanced content. If this is enough, time will tell.

 

4. Quality

Result: has definitely dropped, both in regard to bugs as well as due to streamlining. The plus side here has been the "probably unintended" race to first events and the developers fixing up the content post release. 

Some adjusting still needs to be done though. Latest fractal shows that the developes have not yet found their pace in regard to difficulty and design as well as differences between 5 man and 10 man content.

 

TL;DR:

Returning to raids from strikes makes sense, especially with convergences now in the mix.

There is sufficient bridging content (in name) present that any player interested in accessing 10 man content can do so with the correct mindset. Open world Andies need not apply.

[Luthan.5236]

Raids I think. So it means no strikes - they can't make just everything ...
I mean they still need to create the maps and the story - the core part of that expansion. And for the few strike players/raiders there exist the older strikes to re-play + it is only a very small part of the game.

As long as there is other content people can be happy - unless they belong to the part of players that exclusively wants raids, striks and stuff like that (ignoring everything else). For them there are other games that are better than GW2 I guess. (With a different focus and mainly delivering such content for long-term grind.)

Edit. And no: The new public version of the raid will not get people into the instanced thing or even to play older raids. If the changes with "emboldenment" or whatever it is called ... did not work ... not much will change. People either like it or they don't. The main strenght of GW2 is that you do not have to raid - that is why a lot of people like it actually. The unique selling point. For raiders there are just better games - that won't attract the main target audience of GW2 though. It would be wiser - instead of trying to compete with the other games that are already good at raids and stuff - to focus on the main target audience.

I guess with the new approach they try to do this while still giving (as an option) the instanced raid version to people that like this kind of content. While on the same time trying to reduce the cost - should be easier/cheaper to develop this than to th separate raids (like the old ones) when you just have the same/similar maps for both (to also satisfy the more "casual" player). Though I would not even call it "casual" anymore to just not like raiding. There is a lot of stuff that needs you to dedicate a lot of time to GW2. (Which is not "casual".) Achievements and completion and getting legendaries.

Edited August 6 by Luthan.5236

[kiroho.4738]

17 hours ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

Yes, everybody was infatuated with CO CM and LCM for TOFCM was definitely intended and the strike was not bugged at all.

I mean, due to that bug we have a new challenge mode now for hardcore players. 🤷‍♀️
Plus Strikes are more than the two CMs you mentioned. 😉 

 

17 hours ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

And new 100CM is in wonderful shape right now. Great quality, very high quality control. 

Because Fractals suddenly are Strikes suddenly? 😂

 

17 hours ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

Bonus meme

And Story and Dungeons are Strikes too? 😂

Sorry, your arguments missed the topic.
But if you look at the last picture of your "meme", the graph proves pretty clear that Strikes are by far mor popular than Raids.
Sounds like a success to me.

[Krzysztof.5973]

11 minutes ago, kiroho.4738 said:

I mean, due to that bug we have a new challenge mode now for hardcore players. 🤷‍♀️
Plus Strikes are more than the two CMs you mentioned. 😉 

 

Because Fractals suddenly are Strikes suddenly? 😂

 

And Story and Dungeons are Strikes too? 😂

Sorry, your arguments missed the topic.
But if you look at the last picture of your "meme", the graph proves pretty clear that Strikes are by far mor popular than Raids.
Sounds like a success to me.

I don't know in what world is that a win for a consumer. Devs are reusing assets, creating half-(insert kitten here)ed mechanics and making zero effort in quality assurance. Why are you not doing strike CMs? Are they not good enough for you? You literally have more achievements in raids than strikes. 

[Parasite.5389]

16 minutes ago, Degs.5148 said:

You think.

o_O

I mean I guess the alternative is they remove green shards altogether, and you now have more shards, but now you've just devalued every SotO strike reward.

[Degs.5148]

Yes, that's why I want to know what they're doing with them.

[Sobx.1758]

Considering anet's described plan for green/blue shards, green shards should stay for the latest soto strikes. But you'll know for sure when the expansion releases.

Edited August 6 by Sobx.1758