Impossible for new players! RAIDS!

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Ayrilana.1396" said:I'm not going to answer your question because of the logical fallacy which you're using. Create an unbiased and fair question.

EDIT: I'll just fix it for you.

So, is their design good and they should stick to it or it isn't? Pick one.

I find their design to be good.

And yet you've just said that:

The issue with raids stems not with raids themselves but with the direction Anet decided to go with GW2 from the beginning.That is also part of the design.

Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.

If everything was right with the design, Raids would not end up being abandoned. And yet they did end up that way. So yeah, in that way my question was a leading one. Or rather a rhetorical one, because the history already answered it.

Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.

The truth is, that the issue was with the Raids themselves - or, to be more specific, with the fact that as they were implemented, they were not a good match with the rest of the game. So, either the issue was with them being implemented in a way that was wrong for GW2, or with the fact that they were implemented at all. And you even indirectly acknowledge that in that last quote.

Truth? So your OPINION is now truth? If you feel that it's proof then by all means give facts otherwise please don't state your opinion as such.

Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least some of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design".

That's your opinion.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Astralporing.1957" said:The truth is, that the issue was with the Raids themselves - or, to be more specific, with the fact that as they were implemented, they were not a good match with the rest of the game.

You can believe that all you want, that's your opinion after all, but that doesn't make it a "truth" in any way. If the way Raids were implemented wasn't a good match then they wouldn't last all those years. You don't keep updating/expanding something contrary to a game's design for almost 4 years (November 2015 to June 2019)

[yann.1946]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:This would go against their statement when raids first came out if they were to "depreciate" it.

Yes. It would. So? It's clear their original approach did

not

work out. If they're going to keep to it, it means no new raids ever. Is that what you want?

You’re assuming that them not making earlier raids easier is the issue.No. I am assuming that if something is obviously wrong, and it's clear that the matters don't go in good direction, not doing anything but just continuing on the previous course just because we're sticking to some completely arbitrary prior decision is not the wisest choice.

Original design decisions should never be considered sacrosanct and completely unviolable - especially when it's clear that something somewhere in those original designs is not working right. Sometimes things need to change.

But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected.The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, isignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.

[maddoctor.2738]

@yann.1946 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:This would go against their statement when raids first came out if they were to "depreciate" it.

Yes. It would. So? It's clear their original approach did

not

work out. If they're going to keep to it, it means no new raids ever. Is that what you want?

You’re assuming that them not making earlier raids easier is the issue.No. I am assuming that if something is obviously wrong, and it's clear that the matters don't go in good direction, not doing anything but just continuing on the previous course just because we're sticking to some completely arbitrary prior decision is not the wisest choice.

Original design decisions should never be considered sacrosanct and completely unviolable - especially when it's clear that something somewhere in those original designs is not working right. Sometimes things need to change.

But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected.The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, isignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.

That's part of it. They also released the hardest Raid first during Path of Fire development, added no good/worthwhile reward in Path of Fire Raids, their first Path of Fire Raid was in the Underworld, but the place in no way felt like doing justice to the Underworld. Then let's not forget Raid releases being tied to the Living World release schedule meant EXTRA delays that had little to do with content development, lack of balance and proper "roles" (the dreaded Chrono+Druid+BS x2 meta lasted longer than it should) and many others. Aside from reduced development resources, Raids faced a lot of other problems as well

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Ayrilana.1396" said:Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design did fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

Truth? So your OPINION is now truth? If you feel that it's proof then by all means give facts otherwise please don't state your opinion as such.Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the fact that they did happen is not an opinion.

Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least

some

of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design".

That's your opinion.No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"yann.1946" said:But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected.The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, isignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.

That's part of it. They also released the hardest Raid first during Path of Fire development, added no good/worthwhile reward in Path of Fire Raids, their first Path of Fire Raid was in the Underworld, but the place in no way felt like doing justice to the Underworld. Then let's not forget Raid releases being tied to the Living World release schedule meant EXTRA delays that had little to do with content development, lack of balance and proper "roles" (the dreaded Chrono+Druid+BS x2 meta lasted longer than it should) and many others. Aside from reduced development resources, Raids faced a lot of other problems as well

All those things are also part of raid implementation, are they not? As i said to @Ayrilana.1396, we may argue about which specific decisions were right and were wrong, but we can hardly argue that there were no mistakes at all. If that were true, Raids would still be doing fine.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"yann.1946" said:But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected.The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, isignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.

That's part of it. They also released the hardest Raid first during Path of Fire development, added no good/worthwhile reward in Path of Fire Raids, their first Path of Fire Raid was in the Underworld, but the place in no way felt like doing justice to the Underworld. Then let's not forget Raid releases being tied to the Living World release schedule meant EXTRA delays that had little to do with content development, lack of balance and proper "roles" (the dreaded Chrono+Druid+BS x2 meta lasted longer than it should) and many others. Aside from reduced development resources, Raids faced a lot of other problems as well

All those things are also part of raid implementation, are they not? As i said to @"Ayrilana.1396", we may argue about which specific decisions were right and were wrong, but we can hardly argue that there were

no

mistakes at all. If that were true, Raids would still be doing fine.

You said:

I am assuming that if something is obviously wrong, and it's clear that the matters don't go in good direction, not doing anything but just continuing on the previous course just because we're sticking to some completely arbitrary prior decision is not the wisest choice.

and:

It's clear their original approach did not work out.

First, they told us that matters were going in a good direction. There is no indication about Raids being a failure in any developer comment from the first three releases, they were both surprised at the playerbase the Raids attracted and at the same time promised faster and more regular releases. I can dig up the exact comments but I'm sure you know them so it will be pointless. So I don't think there was anything "obviously wrong" with Raids, nor that the original approach they used in them "wasn't working".

Second, you say they didn't do anything and they stuck to an arbitrary decision, yet they didn't do that, and that was the problem with Raids. Everything I mentioned in my post you quoted (except the balance) is about them NOT following their initial decision, direction and approach. And not following that original approach, not following the initial arbitrary decisions they set, wasn't the wisest choice.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Ayrilana.1396" said:Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design

did

fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids.

Truth? So your

OPINION

is now truth? If you feel that it's proof then by all means give facts otherwise please don't state your opinion as such.Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the

fact

that they did happen is

not

an opinion.

I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant.

Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.

I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the WHY. Please don't shift the goal post on this.

Sure, you may say (like Cyninja) that the issue was more with general management, not specifically with Raids, but that still brings us to Anet making some bad design decisions. If they can make a bad decision in one place, they can make it in another - so, no design decision they made in the past should be treated as unchangeable, because obviously at least

some

of them were wrong. At best, we might say that some won't be changed due to practical reasons (lack of resources), but saying that something should stay that way because they once decided so is just tantamount to saying that the game cannot be improved in any way. And, in this specific case, is the same as saying that Raids were simply destined to fail from the beginning, that nothing can be changed about it, and that this is (as you said) a "good design".

That's your opinion.No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about DESIGN DECISIONS (the WHY) and not about them being abandoned.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"maddoctor.2738" said:First, they told us that matters were going in a good direction.Yes. Or, to be more precise, they said about raids doing better than expected, which is not the same (although might be interpreted that way). Personally, i never took those words as anything more than a PR promotion of new content. If i remember well, they were satisfied with how build templates turned out too, you know.

There is no indication about Raids being a failure in any developer comment from the first three releases, they were both surprised at the playerbase the Raids attracted and at the same time promised faster and more regular releases. I can dig up the exact comments but I'm sure you know them so it will be pointless. So I don't think there was anything "obviously wrong" with Raids, nor that the original approach they used in them "wasn't working".No, we only know that it was okay while raids were still relatively fresh. We don't really know if that stilll held true once the initial wave of players willing to look and see the new content (and get the legendary armor) crested over and receded, and raids became more like everyday's farm. They never told us anything about that.

Second, you say they didn't do anything and they stuck to an arbitrary decision, yet they didn't do that, and that was the problem with Raids. Everything I mentioned in my post you quoted (except the balance) is about them NOT following their initial decision, direction and approach.You don't know their initial direction and approach. For all you know, what they were doing was what they were intending to do from the beginning, and the promises you heard were them hoping for more than intended (which didn't pan out).Remember also, that by the time they were making those promises (which was after first 3 wings got released), the original full raid team was already mostly dismantled and the remains joined with fractal team, so obviously they were promising something they simply could not deliver. Which, again, suggests that it was the reduced schedule (due to already reduced resources) from wing 4 on that was the initial plan, not those promises.

And not following that original approach, not following the initial arbitrary decisions they set, wasn't the wisest choice.It might not have been a choice at all. For example, even with full raid team they never had the ability to make good on that 6 wings a year promise. The best they could hope for would be 2. Maybe 3, if they had access to the initial resources (which they didn't have anymore).

Yes. I am sure allocating more resources would have helped. A lot of problems can be fixed if you have access to infinite resources. Unfortunately, infinite resources is something they didn't have access to, so that's one "fix" that was forever to remain as pure theory, with no chance whatsoever to turn into practice.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design

did

fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids.I don't follow. Whether those design decisions have impact on each other doesn't matter. What matters is if Anet is always making correct decisions, or not. If they always make correct decisions, which never need to be changed, then nothing in the game can go wrong. But if they do happen to make wrong decisions, and their design goals

are

subject to change, then them once saying they inteded something is not a hard argument against change. And we do know that both bad decisions and design goal changes are things that do happen to them.

Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the

fact

that they did happen is

not

an opinion.

I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant.

Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.It does not. But it does mean that Anet

is

making bad decisions, and that sometimes design decision changes

should

happen. And you can't just assume that some parts you like are extempt from that. Or rather, you can, but that is also nothing more than just a subjective opinion.

I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the

WHY

. Please don't shift the goal post on this.I'm not.

You

are. I was merely responding to your claim that something is not possible because it would go against their initial stated design goals. My whole point was that it is a very weak argument, because original design goals by itself do not matter. What matters is how they are relevant to the new situation, and

this

you never actually refered to. You just were bringing up their original statement as if it was something sacred, not to be questioned and never to be changed, just because. You never bothered to try to justify

why

this design decision

No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about

DESIGN DECISIONS

(the

WHY

) and not about them being abandoned.Again, the one trying to change goalposts here is you. My whole point when arguing with you was contesting your appeal to authority argument. Nothing more.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Astralporing.1957" said:i never took those words as anything more than a PR promotion of new content.

Yet you take the "Raids attract a small audience" as if it's not also PR talk (to promote Strikes and/or other content). You probably believe that the "Reports of Fractals death are exaggerated" was also a serious comment.

No, we only know that it was okay while raids were still relatively fresh.

Which is what really matters because after that period they changed everything regarding Raids, which I outlined earlier.

You don't know their initial direction and approach.

Same goes for you. You are the one who first claimed that their initial approach wasn't working and they didn't do anything to fix it. But you don't know what that initial approach even was. How do you know they followed the original approach and didn't make changes and that's what killed Raids?

Which, again, suggests that it was the reduced schedule (due to already reduced resources) from wing 4 on that was the initial plan, not those promises.

You don't really know that. They promised faster releases that's a fact. Then they put the Raid team to work on the Living World, releasing 2 episodes of Season 3, in a Season that was going too fast. That quick release cadence wasn't planned beforehand, it was a quick knee-jerk reaction to failing player participation and failing revenue during Season 3. "Let's overwhelm the players with one episode every 2 months, that will surely bring them back". It obviously didn't work.

It might not have been a decision at all. For example, even with full raid team they never had the ability to make good on that 6 wings a year promise. The best they could hope for would be 2. Maybe 3, if they had access to the initial resources (which they no longer had at this time).

You don't know how many wings the "real" Raid team could produce without being responsible for 1/3 the living world episodes of Season 3, and who knows how much work for the expansion.

Yes. I am sure allocating more resources would have helped.

No. Keeping the same resources as were initially allocated and not reducing them would've helped. You know, if they didn't change the initial plan and approach.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Which has nothing to do with raids themselves.That's your opinion. I happen to disagree. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Somewhere (be it in raids or outside them) Anet's design

did

fail. And so, claiming that whatever Anet claimed once must always be upheld is an argument that doesn't hold water. It would be worth something only if they were known to never make mistakes - and we know this is not true.

Actually, it's not. Design choices that Anet made over the course of GW2 really don't have much bearing to design choices that Anet made with raids.I don't follow. Whether those design decisions have impact on each other doesn't matter. What matters is if Anet is always making correct decisions, or not. If they always make correct decisions, which never need to be changed, then nothing in the game can go wrong. But if they do happen to make wrong decisions, and their design goals

are

subject to change, then them once saying they inteded something is not a hard argument against change. And we do know that both bad decisions and design goal changes are things that do happen to them.

If you believe whether the design choices outside of raids doesn't matter then why did you use them against me in a previous post? I answered the unbiased version of your question that I felt raid design was good and that the issue rose elsewhere by changes that Anet has made over the course of the game. You then replied that "That is also part of the design." If you believed that they didn't matter then why say "That is also part of the design"?

I'm also noticing you now shifting things over to "correct choices".

Truth is that raids got abandoned. Truth is also that if Anet's design was perfect, they wouldn't have been. We may argue about the specifics of those design errors (and in which part of the game or game management they took place) but the

fact

that they did happen is

not

an opinion.

I'll repeat the part of my posted that you decided to not include as it's very relevant.

Anet has abandoned, or put on hold, a lot of things in this game. Dungeons haven't seen new content since 2013. WvW barely gets any updates as well as sPvP. Fractals got a new fractal after how long? Guild missions. The majority of the game where they simply ignore bugs that have plagued players and prevented progression. I'm sure that I'm missing other things. The point is that the abandonment itself does not necessarily mean that there is actually anything wrong with the content.It does not. But it does mean that Anet

is

making bad decisions, and that sometimes design decision changes

should

happen. And you can't just assume that some parts you like are extempt from that. Or rather, you can, but that is also nothing more than just a subjective opinion.

You're deflecting. You stated that raids got abandoned and it was because of the design choices that they made. I then list a handful of other content that got abandoned or have seen very minimal support. You're now going off on "bad decisions" and how design changes "should" happen. You're choosing not to address what I said and to instead divert the discussion elsewhere.

I will also mention that this "truth" you're speaking of in your post was not about them being abandoned but instead about the

WHY

. Please don't shift the goal post on this.I'm not.

You

are. I was merely responding to your claim that something is not possible because it would go against their initial stated design goals. My whole point was that it is a very weak argument, because original design goals by itself do not matter. What matters is how they are relevant to the new situation, and

this

you never actually refered to. You just were bringing up their original statement as if it was something sacred, not to be questioned and never to be changed, just because. You never bothered to try to justify

why

this design decision

No. You originally stated your opinion about the issue being with raids themselves and that being "truth" also know as a fact. When I questioned you calling it the "truth" you then shifted over to raids being abandoned.

If you believe the issue to be raids, since you're making the initial claim, please provide actual evidence.

No. That part is not an opinion. Unless, of course, you think that raids did not get abandoned and are doing perfectly fine.

You're moving the goal post again. In your quote you're talking about

DESIGN DECISIONS

(the

WHY

) and not about them being abandoned.Again, the one trying to change goalposts here is you. My whole point when arguing with you was contesting your appeal to authority argument. Nothing more.

No. Your shifting back and forth between raids being abandoned and the design choices. Where I responded to by saying "that's your opinion, you were speaking of design decisions. You then countered that by shifting to talking about raids being abandoned. They are not the same thing. You also have not provided any evidence to support that there is actually a correlation between the two.

If we are to continue, you will have to first back up that raids being abandoned (or at least put on hold) has to do with the design choices for raids.

[felix.2386]

yea, i feel you, the game is easy, it took me 3 days of dailies with pugs in lfgfrom 0 fractal experience (bought all my infusions, and the entire master level including some expert levels gained from doing cms only) to dances with demons title as alac and i've been doing daily CMs since then

i kinda got lucky at first as most groups i joined didn't ask me for dwd even tho mentioned in their lfg

raid shouldn't be much harder, but there's no easy mode for you to get KP or w/e and people demands it to even join.

but it's kinda understandable as 90% of the players of the playerbase barely know how to press buttons some how

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

To jump onto the train of though going on here with 'easy mode r aids' and such

I think I've got a solution. Make 3 wings.First event teaches something the first boss does. The first boss does something a little extra that translates out to what the second boss does, etc. etc. This goes on throughout the wings. So playing Wing 1 of this raid will get you passively ready for wing 2, and wing 2 for wing 3, etc. Now upon wing 3's release, all three wings should get CMs that stack all the organically learned mechanics onto every boss in a fun way. Think a bit about how wing 7's CMs add more stuff to the existing mechanics.

[Armen.1483]

@"dani.5680" said:Impossible for new players to get in a new raid! All require 150+ LI and all training require ascended so you are in a farming space of over 3 months for ascended gear just to get in the training! Then 1 year to get those 150 LI! What the hell is going on?Most of training guilds take you on weekends if they are free, if not, not!So as a new player you have to farm 1year to be in a LFG? Thats stupid isn't it?

As many mentioned above: TAG UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN SQUAD. If you think others leeched their way to 250 kps by doing nothing, then what is it YOU are doing ? Getting into a group with experienced players so they carry you ?You can fill a no kp group for any boss in 5 minutes, why aren't you doing this ? Do you feel other players will be bad if you don't ask kp, but you on the other hand are very experienced, because "top dps" ? So you want to leech, but don't want others to do so.And I can assure you KP means more experience in 90% of the cases. If a person killed Dhuum 100 times while being carried by his guild, he will surely have learnt something by doing it over and over again just by muscle memory.What about DPS numbers... With some experience you will learn that DPS depends on many factors: you can easily outdps many top dps players if they spend their time doing mechanics while you don't and just do a golem train.My 3 tips to you:1) don't be arrogant2) get into a guild that casually does raids, there are many of those. Look LFG in raid section you will find sometimes guilds asking for motivated players and no requirements3) Exotic gear is fine, but it is as easy as getting an ascended gear nowdays. Do daily fractals, wintersday events, get the ascended trinkets in an efficient way looking up the internet guides and you will have full ascended gear in a week without even trying. I mean if you can't manage to gear up it proves again that you are totally new to the game and will natually struggle in the raids. For my farm trains I wouldn't get you in my group. For training meme run: sure, with pleasure.

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:You know, i was in the middle of writing a long response to you, but wanted to check something first and did a little search, which accidentally reminded me that we've been doing the very exact same discussion several times already in many different threads in the past.I suddenly lost any desire to rehash all the same arguments all over again. Let's just agree that we interpter what was happening and what devs were saying in different ways, and that both of our approaches are equally subjective.

Of course, i will still keep thinking that my view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you.

[Linken.6345]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:You know, i was in the middle of writing a long response to you, but wanted to check something first and did a little search, which accidentally reminded me that we've been doing the very exact same discussion several times already in many different threads in the past.I suddenly lost any desire to rehash all the same arguments all over again. Let's just agree that we interpter what was happening and what devs were saying in different ways, and that both of our approaches are equally subjective.

Of course, i will still keep thinking that

my

view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you.

So tldr I cant find any proof for my points but still think Im right.Do that about sum it up?

[Astralporing.1957]

@Linken.6345 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:You know, i was in the middle of writing a long response to you, but wanted to check something first and did a little search, which accidentally reminded me that we've been doing the very exact same discussion several times already in many different threads in the past.I suddenly lost any desire to rehash all the same arguments all over again. Let's just agree that we interpter what was happening and what devs were saying in different ways, and that both of our approaches are equally subjective.

Of course, i will still keep thinking that

my

view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you.

So tldr I cant find any proof for my points but still think Im right.Do that about sum it up?No. I just can't be bothered to give the same responses to the same arguments of the same person for the

fifth

time (or more, i wasn't looking all that deeply, and i wasn't checking the archived old forum either)

But to sum it up again, in a very short version: the dev statements and actions both me and maddoctor are looking at are very much a subject to interpretation. I have learned already that maddoctor's interpretation of those things is wildly different than mine. Short of getting some inside news it's next to impossible to know which of our interpretations is closer to the truth. I think it's mine, obviously. Equally obviously maddoctor keeps to his own.

We've been doing that back and forth for a while already, so i don't think i will see an argument i haven't seen yet (nor do i have any i haven;t already used before). As such, i don;t think repeating it again is worth anything. Especially since raids are already abandoned, and that is extremely unlikely to change, so talking about those things accomplishes nothing - it's just a game of imagining what could have been done (but wasn't). It has no bearing whatsoever on the future anyway.

TL/DR;Believe what you want. Raids are still abandoned, and that is not likely to change.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Astralporing.1957 said:Of course, i will still keep thinking that my view on the issue is closer to the truth. I believe also that it will be the same for you.

It's true that we've been through this numerous times, giving the same arguments. What makes this different than other times is the part I quoted and started my response with, the idea that Arenanet knew there was something wrong with their design of Raids and did -nothing- about it. The idea that Raids failed because Arenanet did nothing to save them. Of course you can believe that, but I believe it's the exact opposite, Arenanet knew their design of Raids was working and yet made numerous changes to the original formula, that eventually led to the death of Raids.

We can only speculate anyway of what would've happened, but the truth is they DID make MANY changes from how Raids first released. You also claimed that all those changes were their intent anyway. The butchered version we eventually got, with all the delays, the lacking rewards and the minimal encounters, but we don't know if they intended to destroy their newest content or not. You say the death of Raids was planned from the start and I want to believe otherwise.

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:You say the death of Raids was planned from the start and I want to believe otherwise.Oh, i don't believe they planned the death of raids. It's just i don't believe they ever were intending (or able) to give to raids enough resources needed for them to survive. Why is, as always, barring any inside info, a matter of discussion. Although i (again) don't think they were intentionally starving raids - they probably honestly thought that the amount they dedicated should be enough. We both know it wasn't. The difference between us is that you seem to think there was an option of getting more resources (or just retaining original ones), while i think that this was never on the table.

[Firebeard.1746]

@Cyninja.2954 said:I'm not invalidating players experience, that would not even be possible given experience is subjective. I'm saying that there is a level of ineptitude which does not need be catered to balance wise.

I would agree with this in theory, but your level of what you consider ineptitude is way too high and/or does not factor in community realities. I.E. even if an alternative is possible the community may not accept said alternative, and doesn't in many cases.

[Ayrilana.1396]

We'll likely never know the answer to this but how many players regularly do strike missions who do not do raids?

[Astralporing.1957]

There's no data whatsoever about it.

Efficiency is already way too unreliable (with too many of its accounts going inactive at different moments of GW2 history) when it comes just to tracking single kills. It's completely useless in checking frequency of kills, or in knowing how current the data is.

Meaning, you can't really differentiate between someone that made one kill and someone that made 50 kills, or between someone who made their last kill yesterday, and someone who made it a year ago and is no longer playing. Nor can you really know if achievements (kills) in different categories are made by the same people, or completely different ones.

And efficiency is our only statistical source.

So, basically, there's no way to answer that question without it turning into a game of wildly inaccurate guesses.

[Ayrilana.1396]

Which was what I said in the first part of the post. However, there is data on Anet's end (which we'll likely never know) but the point of the question was to think about what the answer could be. That number would likely be the number of players who would do raids if there was an easy mode as you'd expect it to be on a similar skill level. If the number is small then it likely wouldn't be worth it.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Firebeard.1746 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I'm not invalidating players experience, that would not even be possible given experience is subjective. I'm saying that there is a level of ineptitude which does not need be catered to balance wise.

I would agree with this in theory, but your level of what you consider ineptitude is way too high and/or does not factor in community realities. I.E. even if an alternative is possible the community may not accept said alternative, and doesn't in many cases.

Oh absolutely, that is purely subjective too.

Yet I personally believe that the issues with raids and accessibility or success are tied to other factors than difficulty. There are many things which contribute: lack of good LFG, lack of actual in-game tutorials, the amazing but very complex build system and calculations (it seems simple on first inspection, but is actually very deep and players who don't use outside resources will never grasp how far the scaling here goes. very misleading), lack of in-game hand-holding or even guidance to which content would be appropriate for players, etc.

There is a reason other MMOs have auto queues and theme-park style guidance for players and that is not tied only into getting players into groups.