If you wanted to keep raids as a game mode, how would you increase participation?

[Firebeard.1746]

 

6 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

This is a way better argument, the difference being that they do work with school (which is a material difference that matters).

Now i would counter that not all companies do that, big ones maybe, but the smaller ones don't really contribute to schooling. Do you think the comanies who don't participate in the cycle of schooling be not allowed to ask for degrees?

Not being allowed wasn't the premise. Hypocrisy was. Adding nuance to that, yes they're being hypocritical. And I'm glad I work for a company that is invested in its community.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Firebeard.1746]

8 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Then you lack experience because that is simply not the case. There is no PuG community and static community. It's a fluent transition on all levels.

 

Here is something to think about for you:

Most active raiders raid more than their full clear per week. I know players who full clear on Monday and then continue to raid 6 more days per week in different ways either training new builds (or testing them), raid for fun or run training groups. That is AFTER they did their static clears.

 

Most active players fall in that bracket in some way or another. Some stick to full clearing Win1-4, then either call it quits or practice on bosses they have not cleared. Others have more or less bosses cleared, but nearly every player will go for what he has cleared and experience on first (occasionally in a static or group of players he knows), then move on to further bosses with players who have everything cleared killing bosses multiple times each week.

 

Statics dissolve constantly. Or players drop out and need to be replaced. The mere assumption that there is 2 communities and only 1 type of player uses the LFG for PuG play is completely incorrect.

 

EDIT:

and maybe that is why we keep talking past each other. You are basing your arguments and approach around an assumption which I simply have not experienced: that players are either PuG or static players but never both, which is just not the case. Players are what they are depending on the situation they are in at the point in time. I am a very different "type" of player between running with my static, filling up a chill guild raid or running a training, and that is reflected in how I will interact with the LFG.

 

EDIT 2:

Maybe it is better to think of it this way: KP are a means to an end, mostly trying to find similar skilled players via the LFG (and skill levels can vary a lot). The over-representation of different skilled groups versus trainings or 0 KP groups on the LFG is heavily skewed towards groups asking for KP of different amounts. Why? Because there is far more groups at different stages of experience than there is beginner groups which makes sense in the context that the total player base of raids is still far larger than new players joining (not accounting for lack of experience in creating groups for new player, which would also be a factor. I have said so before but players used to tackling group content from other game modes have a far easier time getting into pve raids). That might leave the impression to an individual that only PuG players demand KP, when in fact it does not matter if players play predominantly in PuG groups or statics, because the goal for using KP is not based around that distinction.

I'm not attacking you in any way (or asking you to change your habits, or even accept me in a run, because I'm not asking for that), I just find it weird that someone who uses KP to PuG is criticizing me for wanting a static of similarly skilled players in order to actually raid, because obviously they don't want to group with me, but they expect me to pug like them. That's how this whole conversation started. And the devs would have the best stats on who is doing what and how often people are training. I'm sure there's stats for boss boss kill counts. and how often dissimilarly skilled players are grouping.
 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[yann.1946]

46 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

 

Not being allowed wasn't the premise. Hypocrisy was. Adding nuance to that, yes they're being hypocritical. And I'm glad I work for a company that is invested in its community.

Oke sure do you think smaller companies are hypocritical when asking for degrees when not investing in schooling? 

[Firebeard.1746]

3 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Oke sure do you think smaller companies are hypocritical when asking for degrees when not investing in schooling? 

Yes, even if they can't do as much as others, they can still do SOMETHING. And at this point, we're not even talking about the topic.

[Astralporing.1957]

23 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Oke sure do you think smaller companies are hypocritical when asking for degrees when not investing in schooling? 

Depends. Normally, no. On the other hand, if the company has the capacity to train new hires, needs new hires, and yet all they do is complain there's not enough people with required work experience available, then sure, they are  hypocritical. And shortsighted.

 

In reality, most reasonable companies doing hires for critical workspots in the situation when there's shortage of people with proper experience around are prepared for the need to train those people first. They become more picky only when there's enough people around to choose from. And when they are not about to go down due to lack of people in the workplace.

 

There's also a major difference here: you see, the people that are asked for a degree by a company, get paid by said company if they'll get hired.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Sobx.1758]

14 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

It's funny you dig this up but not where I said I don't like Envoy compared to the alternatives. XD.

 

I didn't "dig it up", I saw that shortly before the forum went down for the update, am I supposed to somehow delete it from my memory all of the sudden because you don't like it?

Not specifically mentioning "envoy" does absolutely nothing for the point your post or for the reason I've mentioned it in the first place in my response.

 

14 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

And I already decided to agree with you a few posts ago on leggies, explained your hypocrisy and you don't acknowledge this and still refuse to explain why I should be more rewarded for soloq sPVP than strikes. You're literally not contributing to this conversation anymore, just bashing.

Oooh... So you agree with me and yet keep telling me that:

-you need statics to "graduate" to normal raids (no, you don't need statics)

-partial LI/LD drop would somehow help people knowing when to move up to normal raids, but for some reason KPs (or rather CLEARLY SUCCEEDING IN THOSE RAIDS) don't do the same (???)

-"I don't care about raids because I don't support LI/LD drops for training/easy mode" (I'm confused how you can claim you agree with me and then write something like that, all based on the exactly same unchanged idea?)

-basically the whole few last posts which then you've dodged by opting out for this short answer. I mean if you agree then there's no reason to respond, sure. But you didn't seem to agree which is why those responses kept going in the first place.

 

...so is it really me who's "arguing for arguing"? Or am I responding to things you wrote that make no sense to me or appear to be blatant lies (..apparently possibly just lack of knowledge about the words you're using)? If you agree with me, then you agree LI/LD isn't needed for those easier/training modes?

[yann.1946]

27 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

Yes, even if they can't do as much as others, they can still do SOMETHING. And at this point, we're not even talking about the topic.

Oke thank you for being consistent, i disagree at a fundamental level, but thats not really a problem.

[Firebeard.1746]

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

-you need statics to "graduate" to normal raids (no, you don't need statics)

It's clear you use KP and I don't so I'm not sure you can keep asserting this.

 

Quote

-partial LI/LD drop would somehow help people knowing when to move up to normal raids, but for some reason KPs (or rather CLEARLY SUCCEEDING IN THOSE RAIDS) don't do the same (???)

You're missing the barrier to entry. The LI is the carrot on the stick. If you succeed your training run, you'd do an extra raid for the extra LI if you haven't that week, or help someone in group who hasn't. You need KP to get the LI in your circumstance.

 

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

-"I don't care about raids because I don't support LI/LD drops for training/easy mode" (I'm confused how you can claim you agree with me and then write something like that, all based on the exactly same unchanged idea?)

Basically this all comes down to KP. If you believe the KP system is fine, then it is, to you. The numbers on participation will tell the devs as this is the status quo. I gave a natural way for people to party up without having to lock each other out and still get something out of it. I don't believe KP keeps people engaged enough.

 

Quote

..so is it really me who's "arguing for arguing"? Or am I responding to things you wrote that make no sense to me or appear to be blatant lies (..apparently possibly just lack of knowledge about the words you're using)? If you agree with me, then you agree LI/LD isn't needed for those easier/training modes?

Yes because you clearly can't see that I don't think KP is healthy yet you think it is. I think I can summarize your argument as L2KP noob. Anet would know the effectiveness of that approach and there's really no argument to be had.

ANd I don't have to answer to you. I don't agree with anything you're saying, but for my sanity I don't have to reply to everything you say. Because I'm not an infinite resource.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Sobx.1758]

14 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I'm saying, introduce a strike-like version because the content holds you hostage literally over 1 persons performance over and over. This is the issue, you either ask for KP and make sure everyone can do it, or you're stuck waiting hours and hours for people to learn their role, regardless of your performance. Make it give clear tells when the group does well enough to do the raid version, then everyone hops in and snags that too. It's basically like training, but without like the cheese grater. And I'm typing this for like the 5th time in this thread, you're agruing just to argue.

 

So you don't want to "save raids", you want to replace raids with strikes or change the reward structure of strikes. There is a difference between these things, so I'll go back and repeat: stop pretending it was ever about "saving raids" for you. It's clearly about lege armor acquisition.

 

Then you squirm around with claims "nobody said it needs to be easier" (yes, we did say it would be easier, that's pretty must most -if not all- of this thread), while at the same time you want it to be "more like strikes" so you can carry others npnp. (btw you can still complete raids with "1 [and even more] person" failing/dying, but you can't really claim you want HARDER 10MAN CONTENT and then complain about 10 people being needed to complete the content -pick a lane finally)

 

 

"or you're stuck waiting hours and hours for people to learn their role, regardless of your performance" -almost as if (and I don't know how many times I've already said that?) that's literally the reason to funnel people into normal raids instead of giving them rewards for easay modes, which does nothing for your supposed claim about wanting harder 10-man content.

And "group does well enough" when "the group stops consistently failing the mechanics". Also nobody said the whole group needs to go higher at the same time, people learn at different paces and you still seem to be stuck on statics.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[yann.1946]

18 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Depends. Normally, no. On the other hand, if the company has the capacity to train new hires, needs new hires, and yet all they do is complain there's not enough people with required work experience available, then sure, they are  hypocritical. And shortsighted.

I"d agree with shortsighted, not really the hypocritical part (mostly because the hypocrisy of an action is independent of the surrounding work enviremont).

 

18 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

In reality, most reasonable companies doing hires for critical workspots in the situation when there's shortage of people with proper experience around are prepared for the need to train those people first. They become more picky only when there's enough people around to choose from. And when they are not about to go down due to lack of people in the workplace.

 

It was not about companies having in work training, it was specifically about desiring a degree.

 

18 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There's also a major difference here: you see, the people that are asked for a degree by a company, get paid by said company if they'll get hired.

That is completely irrelevant for the conversation i was having with fire. We where merely discussing the hypocrisy of wanting "schooled" people to fill specific spots, while not contributing to the schooling. 

[Firebeard.1746]

3 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

So you don't want to "save raids", you want to replace raids with strikes or change the reward structure of strikes. There is a difference between these things, so I'll go back and repeat: stop pretending it was ever about "saving raids" for you. It's clearly about lege armor acquisition.

Except I believe that putting groups together and showing them they succeed will encourage them to do the extra raid as it will only be a few minutes extra after they do the strike encounter with the right tells.. This is a core piece of my argument you keep glossing over. It's like how T1s are the bridge into T4s and it works in fractals. You get the same rewards, but in different quantities.  T1s don't stop people from doing T4s because T4s give more.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Astralporing.1957]

7 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

That is completely irrelevant for the conversation i was having with fire. We where merely discussing the hypocrisy of wanting "schooled" people to fill specific spots, while not contributing to the schooling. 

Technically, a company is contributing to the schooling - by paying taxes.

 

What we have in PUG raiding is more like a company offering to hire only people that have prior working experience at the spot they are hiring for.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Sobx.1758]

16 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

It's clear you use KP and I don't so I'm not sure you can keep asserting this.

Sure, try re-reading my posts with understanding, because the only "clear" thing here is that you didn't (and you still don't understand the difference between pug/static).

 

Quote

You're missing the barrier to entry. The LI is the carrot on the stick. If you succeed your training run, you'd do an extra raid for the extra LI if you haven't that week, or help someone in group who hasn't. You need KP to get the LI in your circumstance.

You can learn the raid and then move up for the rewards.

What you're proposing (apparently with separate LI limits for both modes? 😄 ) is again just about faster/easier L acquisition. Nothing stops statics from going for normal/training rewards without including newbies and if you want that carrot then that's mostly what that "carrot" will do. What you need though is giving an easier way to learn encounters for newbies and then put those together with the rest of the raiding community to actually meaningfully increase participation. I alread ywrote that and repeating this kitten over and over with you skipping it constantly is getting boring. Maybe I'll just start copy-pasting it.

 

Quote

Basically this all comes down to KP. If you believe the KP system is fine, then it is, to you. The numbers on participation will tell the devs as this is the status quo. I gave a natural way for people to party up without having to lock each other out and still get something out of it. I don't believe KP keeps people engaged enough.

You want LI as additional (if I understood you in this post?) rewards on top of the normal mode and think it wouldn't be the same as it is currently? With people wanting to just farm up easy mode requiring those as proof and getting easier/faster farm? huh, bold.

 

Quote

Yes because you clearly can't see that I don't think KP is healthy yet you think it is. I think I can summarize your argument as L2KP noob. Anet would know the effectiveness of that approach and there's really no argument to be had.

No, try reading my posts with understanding.

Or, you know, keep pretending it's about "saving raids" while all you really want is "easier LI/LD access". Good job.

 

Quote

ANd I don't have to answer to you. I don't agree with anything you're saying, but for my sanity I don't have to reply to everything you say. Because I'm not an infinite resource.

You JUST wrote you agreed with me (but I don't think you did) and now you say you don't agree with anything I'm saying. So... again, pick a lane. You're squirming around from post-to-post (literally one comming after another) a bit too much.

 

 

 

...and speaking of sanity, for the sake of mine, stop responding 3 times to the same post. It's enough that we don't have nested quotes anymore. Press enter 2-3 times at the end of the quote (still WITHIN the quote border) to separate the quote into two.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Firebeard.1746]

5 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

 

You want LI as additional (if I understood you in this post?) rewards on top of the normal mode and think it wouldn't be the same as it is currently? With people wanting to just farm up easy mode requiring those as proof and getting easier/faster farm? huh, bold.

 

And yet you still keep dancing around my T4s vs T1s example, just like you still keep dancing around why strikes aren't rewarding me as well as sPVP.

Obviously not everyone is stuck in T1 easy mode for integrated fractal matrices.

You're still stuck on proof, I want proof out of the equation for people who don't want to engage with that system. I guess you're concerned about my easy mode not giving you a good tell for KP. So you can't weed people doing easy mode out. So we're back to square 1.

I'm fine with them stripping those decoration tokens out and you can use those instead of LI.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED WITH OTHER SANE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD THAT MANY RAID ENCOUNTERS ARE ESSENTIALLY HOSTAGE SITUATIONS AND ARE NOT TESTING INDIVIDUAL SKILL, SO NO, I"M NOT SQUIRMING, YOU"RE NOT READING THE CONVERSATION.

You wanted harder 10 man content (I mean... that's what you claim, at least), it can't "test individual skill" as in allowing a single person literally carry this content alone. But it can "test individual skill" if we consider the knowledge of the encounters AND ability to cooperate with others, which is very obviously a perfectly fine thing to expect in a "harder 10 man content". You said you wanted it. You can't want THAT and at the same time complain that you can't solo carry newbs or w/e. Seems rather obvious, so again: pick a lane and stop constantly going back-and-forth with your own claims.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Firebeard.1746]

3 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

You wanted harder 10 man content, it can't "test individual skill" as in allowing a single person literally carry this content alone. But it can "test individual skill" if we consider the knowledge of the encounters AND ability to cooperate with others, which is very obviously a perfectly fine thing to expect in a "harder 10 man content". You said you wanted it. You can't want THAT and at the same time complain that you can solo carry newbs or w/e. Seems rather obvious, so again: pick a lane.

The dedicated roles aren't testing ability to cooperate with others, they're testing your patience with others . Other games keep roles consistent in and outside of raids. These roles are a major failing of the system.

WoJ you have to explain mechanics to people, and I do often. There is still cooperation involved, it's just not putting the end result entirely on 3 different people in addition to the slew of roles already in the game.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Sobx.1758]

1 minute ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

The dedicated roles aren't testing ability to cooperate with others, they're testing your patience with others. Other games keep roles consistent in and outside of raids. These roles are a major failing of the system.

Then nothing does, good talk.

(but it definitely does more than what you apparently want above btw and I don't think "picking roles" does anything against my claim)

 

But lets play this game then: for you, what would be "testing the ability to cooperate with others"?

[Firebeard.1746]

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Then nothing does, good talk.

(but it definitely does more than what you apparently want above btw and I don't think "picking roles" does anything against my claim)

 

But lets play this game then: for you, what would be "testing the ability to cooperate with others"?

Mechanics like WoJ and boneskinner that are punishing enough people need to know them and explain them. There's more mechanic pressure in both those fights than some raids if you're not doing a specialized role.

[Sobx.1758]

7 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

Mechanics like WoJ and boneskinner that are punishing enough people need to know them and explain them. There's more mechanic pressure in both those fights than some raids if you're not doing a specialized role.

And somehow raid mechanics don't do anything for "testing ability to cooperate", but suddenly SM do?

Huh.

[Firebeard.1746]

4 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

And somehow raid mechanics don't do anything for "testing ability to cooperate", but suddenly SM do?

Huh.

You're twisting my words. I said the dedicated roles, not all raid mechanics. You just hate me.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Sobx.1758]

5 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

You're twisting my words. I said the dedicated roles, not all raid mechanics.

...these posts all were written within 30 minutes, did you already forget about the last ~4 of them, so now for some reason we're going fully-out-of-context???

 

This is what I wrote and you responded to [for clarity: I'll later call this part "the first quote" btw]:

"You wanted harder 10 man content, it can't "test individual skill" as in allowing a single person literally carry this content alone. But it can "test individual skill" if we consider the knowledge of the encounters AND ability to cooperate with others, which is very obviously a perfectly fine thing to expect in a "harder 10 man content". You said you wanted it. You can't want THAT and at the same time complain that you can't solo carry newbs or w/e. Seems rather obvious, so again: pick a lane."

Nothing here is talking strictly about ROLES, but rather about the whole encounters and raids setting/rules.

 

To which you've responded with:

"The dedicated roles aren't testing ability to cooperate with others, they're testing your patience with others."

So for some reason after I said a "harder 10man content" (raids) isn't exactly supposed to test individual skill in isolation, but rather in unison while colaborating with the rest of the group, you pivoted strictly into "dedicated roles"? Why? How did you take my "FIRST QUOTE" and then tried making it entirely about roles as if that's all raids are?

 

Now when I asked what would "test the ability to cooperate", you claim "some of the SM mechanics" and when I come back to my "FIRST QUOTE" which was about raid encounters (including their mechanics) being RIGHTFULLY more about the group than a single person, you tell me you weren't talking about raid mechanics but about dedicated roles? How did I "twist your words" here??

Not only that, but even IF we want to talk strictly about "dedicated roles" (which was definitely NOT what I was doing above) then those aren't exactly needed, it just makes the encounters more streamlined and easier -and taking on those roles is also due to the players agreeing to cooperate with each other as a group instead of taking some kind of 10-man-but-everyone-for-themselves approach.

 

 

Quote

You just hate me.

...what? I don't know you.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Technically, a company is contributing to the schooling - by paying taxes.

True, in a functioning society atleast. 

 

I guess here the problem with the comparison shows up as their is not really a government to take that job of schooling. 

 

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

What we have in PUG raiding is more like a company offering to hire only people that have prior working experience at the spot they are hiring for.

Not completely, you could technically have 100 li without having done the boss your plugging for. 

 

Tbh here were hitting against the fun wall, it would seem completely unreasonable to me to expect all people who PUG to also train people. In a sense we expect in all groups for society  to take care of some needs.) 

 

In the same way I would not expect everyone to command squads. 

[Linken.6345]

5 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I'm not attacking you in any way (or asking you to change your habits, or even accept me in a run, because I'm not asking for that), I just find it weird that someone who uses KP to PuG is criticizing me for wanting a static of similarly skilled players in order to actually raid, because obviously they don't want to group with me, but they expect me to pug like them. That's how this whole conversation started. And the devs would have the best stats on who is doing what and how often people are training. I'm sure there's stats for boss boss kill counts. and how often dissimilarly skilled players are grouping.
 

So this thread and its 25 pages is because you got rejected from a static, that you belive is simliary skilled as you?

 

Well they got the right to accept or reject who ever they want mate.

[Firebeard.1746]

1 hour ago, Linken.6345 said:

So this thread and its 25 pages is because you got rejected from a static, that you belive is simliary skilled as you?

 

Well they got the right to accept or reject who ever they want mate.

No, and there's a large section of this thread where I didn't even post, I've only been more active in it the last few days for a while now. If you'd actually read the conversation, you'd know this is false and that I have no intention of static atm.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Firebeard.1746

[Firebeard.1746]

6 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

..these posts all were written within 30 minutes, did you already forget about the last ~4 of them, so now for some reason we're going fully-out-of-context???

 

This is what I wrote and you responded to [for clarity: I'll later call this part "the first quote" btw]:

"You wanted harder 10 man content, it can't "test individual skill" as in allowing a single person literally carry this content alone. But it can "test individual skill" if we consider the knowledge of the encounters AND ability to cooperate with others, which is very obviously a perfectly fine thing to expect in a "harder 10 man content". You said you wanted it. You can't want THAT and at the same time complain that you can't solo carry newbs or w/e. Seems rather obvious, so again: pick a lane."

Nothing here is talking strictly about ROLES, but rather about the whole encounters and raids setting/rules.

 

To which you've responded with:

"The dedicated roles aren't testing ability to cooperate with others, they're testing your patience with others."

So for some reason after I said a "harder 10man content" (raids) isn't exactly supposed to test individual skill in isolation, but rather in unison while colaborating with the rest of the group, you pivoted strictly into "dedicated roles"? Why? How did you take my "FIRST QUOTE" and then tried making it entirely about roles as if that's all raids are?

 

Now when I asked what would "test the ability to cooperate", you claim "some of the SM mechanics" and when I come back to my "FIRST QUOTE" which was about raid encounters (including their mechanics) being RIGHTFULLY more about the group than a single person, you tell me you weren't talking about raid mechanics but about dedicated roles? How did I "twist your words" here??

Not only that, but even IF we want to talk strictly about "dedicated roles" (which was definitely NOT what I was doing above) then those aren't exactly needed, it just makes the encounters more streamlined and easier -and taking on those roles is also due to the players agreeing to cooperate with each other as a group instead of taking some kind of 10-man-but-everyone-for-themselves approach.

To clearly illustrate what I meant: if you aren't doing swords and shields in CA, mechanically, there's far less for you to do than in WoJ,  but when you say :
 

Quote

 

And somehow raid mechanics don't do anything for "testing ability to cooperate", but suddenly SM do?

Huh.

 

When I had just previously stated:
 

Quote

Mechanics like WoJ and boneskinner that are punishing enough people need to know them and explain them. There's more mechanic pressure in both those fights than some raids if you're not doing a specialized role.

It sounds like you're talking ALL RAIDS, not just the particular ones with specialized roles I'm talking about, so it feels like you're trying to bait/trick me into saying all raids are easier, when I never did, or skew what I'm saying to apply to all raids. I'm just merely pointing out that there is more coordination involved in some SM encounters outside those specialized roles (when you asked me to give examples on how you can create more cooperation). There is far less to explain on CA without swords and shields than WoJ. And the swords and shields really don't mean much to the 6 other players.

and yes, there is more cooperation in WoJ between these 2 fights, because the 6 other people can't clothesline others, but this can happen in WoJ, so there are more opportunities to screw up in WoJ

In fact between the two fights, you could argue there's more carrying happening on the part of the specialized roles in CA. And if they weren't supposed to be specialized, then why do the shield/sword buffs stack? I feel that's a pretty strong indicator the devs 100% intended these specialized roles.

This is me clearly illustrating you twisting my words between 2 posts, not 4. I tend to focus between just the more recent ones, and bring in context later when it's totally lost, AND IN THIS CASE THERE IS DEFINITELY TWISTING WITH YOU LEAVING OUT THE NUANCE I ADDED.

The only thing I can give you is I haven't been super good at framing what exactly harder 10-man content means to me in the context of raids. But I've given examples later in the discussion, after all those posts you're quoting to make it more clear, so you still are ignoring.

I made it sound like I want to solo carry, but if I go back to this particular example to explain further, what I mean is players who KNOW THEIR CLASS on a high level can have a huge impact. There are in-game mechanics some classes can apply to make the chains not do as much damage. Can they still kill? Yes. Are the players in my groups still required to do more than if they aren't swords/shields in CA? yes. Do people exploit class in raids? Yes. But said specialized roles like swords shields get in the way of people doing stuff like this (i.e. there's no class mechanics around swords/shields). It's satisfying to use your knowledge of your class to have a large impact. That's something I like to do and didn't clearly communicate. Can I solo kill WoJ? No. Do I still need the 10 other people? Yes. So it gives me a valid reason to work with them and explain mechanics.

PS when  are you going to explain how strikes should be less valuable than sPVP and why people still do t4s even though they can earn all fractal specific rewards (particularly gear/fractal buffs) with just t1s? but still, just contempt on your end.
 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Firebeard.1746