Are raids good or bad for MMOs
Focusing on the casual playerbase was a bad idea – they are finicky and are in a constant demand for instant gratification – Even after effort is put in all another game developer has to do is flash something shiny and BAM! there they go – it’s a no win situation.
On the contrary, mmo companies make more money by growing up the player base, they shouldn not focusing on the casual or hardcore players but on both, that how wow deal with it they made 3 versions of raids one easy, one normal and one hard, and it’s still the 1 st mmo on the market with the biggest playerbase. And they can make more money from casuals because hardcore players are big farmers too, they pay their gems with gold.
in my concern, i’m not into raids and never will be because doing raids it’s like working, it’s time consuming and you have to make a commitment for a guild.
(edited by Bebunw.8137)
Is your team one of these teams?
Besides that the issue is indeed that you can fail with people you know, because if you fail with people you know then how reliable are they truly? Control is not equivalent to success and friendship is not equivalent to excellence; in the open world there are people better than you and people worse and where you fall is truly unknown but that is what makes open world so important; in a vacuum the only control you have is whether or not you complete something which in the end does not challenge you do become better at something.
One thing people tend to do (which is bad) is team up with those who not only have like mindsets but also like skill levels. Yes, you all slowly increase over time, but not having a real benchmark is crippling to personal growth. You can’t be the best if all you compare yourself to is a few people.
Wearing the label of “hardcore” means one thing to one group and another thing to another group; those who farm the Raid with their eyes closed probably think little to nothing of those who complete it with good time and form and almost perfect runs.
You’re missing the point entirely, stop trying to weasel different meanings out of his post. “…how reliable are they truly?” You sound like a monologuing villain, trying to buffer your poor points by making them unnecessarily verbose and obtuse. Get out of here with that vaporous nonsense.
Reliability isn’t just about success, it’s about having the right mindset. Are they gonna nail every mechanic on the first try? Did they bother learning to dodgeroll? Do they understand what makes their class strong? Are they gonna call to bail the night before? Are they willing to try repeatedly, remain calm in the face of failure, and keep trying? Are they willing to learn?
Would you be willing to repeatedly try something as complex as a raid with any random 9 people? Not people who have been practicing, dedicated, or genuinely interested, just random people. I wouldn’t.
As for the vacuum part I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It sounds like you’re saying in open world you can’t compare to anything else, which is true because it’s all carried by the raging zerg. But then you say grouping up with people of different skill hinders growth. The great thing about instanced content is it becomes easier to tell what your failings are, because you communicate with the X other people and decide who has what job. It’s becomes easier to see if you fail your job, because the results are much clearer.
A little savagery now and then is relished by the wisest men.
Don’t cry, Signet of Mercy. Others may forget you, but I will always remember.
Our deficiencies may be overcome by practice and self-discipline.
Don’t cry, Signet of Mercy. Others may forget you, but I will always remember.
Our deficiencies may be overcome by practice and self-discipline.
Challenging open world doesn’t work because it also requires people to coordinate- which doesn’t happen well for a multitude of reasons.
You can’t do serious and challenging content in the open world – because you have no control on how many people join and how good they are. It’s OPEN – so you have to set the bar low – or people will complain (see pre-patch Gerent).They went with “timer maps” instead of “push maps” because people were surfing through the LFG looking for maps “pushed to 90%” – then joining and completing – and repeating the process.
Look at how SW is done – you join one breach, then another, then another – so they tried to limit that via the timer. Is it a good solution? No.
Do I like the timer maps? No. Do I have a better solution? No.No, it should be up to the players, how challenging they like the content.
You simply will not be able to survive in a warzone unless you are well organized.
If you are not willing or are not capable to do so then go to an easier instance of the map.
Obviously you need to be a careful, what kind of rewards you put behind those gates. The head armor of the revenant set was a really bad choice.Joining a 90% complete map for the loot can be discouraged by simply making the loot quality depend on map instance difficulty, event contribution AND map contribution (think “multiply”). Also in my model there isn’t such a thing as a 90% complete map.
In your model there is such a thing – it’s right before the final boss/reward spawns.
Giving player a choice of how challenging they want their map to be implies you give them a choice of overflows- and we don’t have that.
GW1 had both normal and hard mode variants for maps and dungeons. GW2 doesn’t – I suppose they have their reasons for not doing it.
- Nope, there is no final boss. There doesn’t even need to be a hard upper limit of difficulty.
- Obviously we currently don’t have what I am suggesting. What’s your point?
- The big difference between GW1 and GW2 is that apart from city hubs everything was instanced. GW2 is an actual MMO where players meet in open world and then the question arises how much a player should be able to change the world for others. ANet’s answer is/was repeating or rather cyclic events, event chains or meta events. My suggestion is to use (==improve) megaservers and add a map instance browser that allows players to choose the map difficulty and to remove all (event) schedules. The player’s method to push map instance difficulty is simply to succeed in events that get harder over time.
(edited by xlion.3065)
Focusing on the casual playerbase was a bad idea – they are finicky and are in a constant demand for instant gratification – Even after effort is put in all another game developer has to do is flash something shiny and BAM! there they go – it’s a no win situation.
On the contrary, mmo companies make more money by growing up the player base, they shouldn not focusing on the casual or hardcore players but on both, that how wow deal with it they made 3 versions of raids one easy, one normal and one hard, and it’s still the 1 st mmo on the market with the biggest playerbase. And they can make more money from casuals because hardcore players are big farmers too, they pay their gems with gold.
in my concern, i’m not into raids and never will be because doing raids it’s like working, it’s time consuming and you have to make a commitment for a guild.
Indeed including both sides is better, but that hasn’t been the case for the last 3 years has it? Its been ground level mindnumbing, and now after the AMA they will be scaling hot (excluding raid) back down to that level….zzzz. I never played wow and yup it has alot of users……but if its so great and suits your needs why are you in this game? XD. The best I can relate to is coming from gw1 where there was a variety with difficulty levels.
Don’t like / want to do raids — don’t do them bam done and done. I am rather curious though by the last statement…. if your issue is that raids are “time consuming” what would you be doing then in place of doing the raids?
Bender the offender – Proud violator of 17 safe spaces –
I never played wow and yup it has alot of users……but if its so great and suits your needs why are you in this game? XD. The best I can relate to is coming from gw1 where there was a variety with difficulty levels.
Don’t like / want to do raids — don’t do them bam done and done. I am rather curious though by the last statement…. if your issue is that raids are “time consuming” what would you be doing then in place of doing the raids?
wow doesn’t suits me, the solution i mentionned is just a compromise. even though i am an hardcore or veteran player, i don’t like raid because i had bad experience with raiding, i was doing hardmode raids in wow but you know high level pve guilds on wow are military, it’s lile getting a new job to integrate a guild and you have to do it if you want to clear them.
And as any mmo player, you wants the best gears, the best rewards always. i ended hating raids, it’s like losing a feeling of freedom while you play, being forced to do raids to get the loot you want.
That’s why i came on Gw2, to chill in open world, work on legendaries, the best looking skin in game any time you want, no time constraint and no subscription. Switching between pvp and pve because yes i played both even if i prefer pvp more. I enjoyed the living story, getting new stuff each two weeks. That was the gw2 philosophy but after 3 years because of some vocals player they decided to change their game direction. How would you feel if something you like change and you don’t recognize it.
The main negative thing that raid bring is more elitism to the game and as i see it, it turned to toxicity beween players and stress (new raid coming and people already asking title eternal to join the raid).
I think with HoT launch, gw2 has lost something that make it unique compared to others mmo.
(edited by Bebunw.8137)
No – I’ve failed a raid – but because I could choose who I go in with I chose people that I could build things with. We kept at it and we got it down – but that only worked because I managed to find people of a similar mindset – and I did that before the raids were out by finding a guild with this type of people.
The fact that the team I roll with can fail or not is not the issue – the issue is I’d rather have MY people with me instead of random people who I don’t know and may prove unreliable.
*There are teams out there that have the raid on farm – and get every encounter done on the first try – there are teams that can no updraft gors and 5 man VG.
That’s predictability – because of good players.*
The open world is the opposite of that – because you can’t choose who you play with – and you can’t really invest in people – because even if you teach – next event – next overflow – you’ll get NEW people all over again.
Is your team one of these teams?
Besides that the issue is indeed that you can fail with people you know, because if you fail with people you know then how reliable are they truly? Control is not equivalent to success and friendship is not equivalent to excellence; in the open world there are people better than you and people worse and where you fall is truly unknown but that is what makes open world so important; in a vacuum the only control you have is whether or not you complete something which in the end does not challenge you do become better at something.
One thing people tend to do (which is bad) is team up with those who not only have like mindsets but also like skill levels. Yes, you all slowly increase over time, but not having a real benchmark is crippling to personal growth. You can’t be the best if all you compare yourself to is a few people.
Wearing the label of “hardcore” means one thing to one group and another thing to another group; those who farm the Raid with their eyes closed probably think little to nothing of those who complete it with good time and form and almost perfect runs.
My team isn’t as strong as those teams – but definitely a good team. We’ve cleared the bosses fast and easy. They can fail – people I know can fail – but their failure rate is much lower than that of random people.
The real advantage is that because I know them and they know me – we can improve together – randoms in the open world can’t do that.
If you don’t believe me – feel free to look up some WoodenPotatoes video where he describes the same thing – there’s no progress with randoms in the open world because there’s no repetablility – sure over long periods of time people gradually learn – but on an individual level it’s not really that useful.
I want to get an event done NOW – not 3 months later when every pug knows how to do it.
Control is not equivalent to success but I’ve yet to see any successful thing that isn’t well controlled.
The more control you have over anything – the higher your chances to get your desired outcome.
Friendship is not a equivalent to excellence – but excellence and good performance factor in into that “friendship”. At least for me they do. Because friendship is born out of common ideals, goals and ideas. If excellence or good performance are traits that define an individual then he will seek them in others – others that he might befriend – because ultimately people get along well with similar people.
If you’re a high performing player – you’ll have an easier time making friendship bonds with other high performance players and not lower skill, more newbish players.
Playing poorly and performing sub-par usually puts strain on high-skill/low-skill player friendships.
One thing people tend to do (which is bad) is team up with those who not only have like mindsets but also like skill levels.
Why is this bad? I want people like me because similarities mean they’ll be easier to interact with, more fun to be around and the similar skill level means that we’re more likely to complete the encounter.
Why would I team up with different players?
If my goals, reasons and motives for playing the game are completely different from another player’s – why would I team up with him? To what end?
Yes, you all slowly increase over time, but not having a real benchmark is crippling to personal growth. You can’t be the best if all you compare yourself to is a few people.
Of course you attempt to improve – that’s the goal. Your benchmark are not necessarily the people you play with -but other people that are better – you can find them everywhere really.
Wearing the label of “hardcore” means one thing to one group and another thing to another group; those who farm the Raid with their eyes closed probably think little to nothing of those who complete it with good time and form and almost perfect runs.
Agreed – What’s the point?
If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”
Is your team one of these teams?
Besides that the issue is indeed that you can fail with people you know, because if you fail with people you know then how reliable are they truly? Control is not equivalent to success and friendship is not equivalent to excellence; in the open world there are people better than you and people worse and where you fall is truly unknown but that is what makes open world so important; in a vacuum the only control you have is whether or not you complete something which in the end does not challenge you do become better at something.
One thing people tend to do (which is bad) is team up with those who not only have like mindsets but also like skill levels. Yes, you all slowly increase over time, but not having a real benchmark is crippling to personal growth. You can’t be the best if all you compare yourself to is a few people.
Wearing the label of “hardcore” means one thing to one group and another thing to another group; those who farm the Raid with their eyes closed probably think little to nothing of those who complete it with good time and form and almost perfect runs.
You’re missing the point entirely, stop trying to weasel different meanings out of his post. “…how reliable are they truly?” You sound like a monologuing villain, trying to buffer your poor points by making them unnecessarily verbose and obtuse. Get out of here with that vaporous nonsense.
Reliability isn’t just about success, it’s about having the right mindset. Are they gonna nail every mechanic on the first try? Did they bother learning to dodgeroll? Do they understand what makes their class strong? Are they gonna call to bail the night before? Are they willing to try repeatedly, remain calm in the face of failure, and keep trying? Are they willing to learn?
Would you be willing to repeatedly try something as complex as a raid with any random 9 people? Not people who have been practicing, dedicated, or genuinely interested, just random people. I wouldn’t.
As for the vacuum part I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It sounds like you’re saying in open world you can’t compare to anything else, which is true because it’s all carried by the raging zerg. But then you say grouping up with people of different skill hinders growth. The great thing about instanced content is it becomes easier to tell what your failings are, because you communicate with the X other people and decide who has what job. It’s becomes easier to see if you fail your job, because the results are much clearer.
Thank you – you’ve put it very well.
If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”
Challenging open world doesn’t work because it also requires people to coordinate- which doesn’t happen well for a multitude of reasons.
You can’t do serious and challenging content in the open world – because you have no control on how many people join and how good they are. It’s OPEN – so you have to set the bar low – or people will complain (see pre-patch Gerent).They went with “timer maps” instead of “push maps” because people were surfing through the LFG looking for maps “pushed to 90%” – then joining and completing – and repeating the process.
Look at how SW is done – you join one breach, then another, then another – so they tried to limit that via the timer. Is it a good solution? No.
Do I like the timer maps? No. Do I have a better solution? No.No, it should be up to the players, how challenging they like the content.
You simply will not be able to survive in a warzone unless you are well organized.
If you are not willing or are not capable to do so then go to an easier instance of the map.
Obviously you need to be a careful, what kind of rewards you put behind those gates. The head armor of the revenant set was a really bad choice.Joining a 90% complete map for the loot can be discouraged by simply making the loot quality depend on map instance difficulty, event contribution AND map contribution (think “multiply”). Also in my model there isn’t such a thing as a 90% complete map.
In your model there is such a thing – it’s right before the final boss/reward spawns.
Giving player a choice of how challenging they want their map to be implies you give them a choice of overflows- and we don’t have that.
GW1 had both normal and hard mode variants for maps and dungeons. GW2 doesn’t – I suppose they have their reasons for not doing it.
- Nope, there is no final boss. There doesn’t even need to be a hard upper limit of difficulty.
- Obviously we currently don’t have what I am suggesting. What’s your point?
- The big difference between GW1 and GW2 is that apart from city hubs everything was instanced. GW2 is an actual MMO where players meet in open world and then the question arises how much a player should be able to change the world for others. ANet’s answer is/was repeating or rather cyclic events, event chains or meta events. My suggestion is to use (==improve) megaservers and add a map instance browser that allows players to choose the map difficulty and to remove all (event) schedules. The player’s method to push map instance difficulty is simply to succeed in events that get harder over time.
My point is that given the fact they don’t want to give us the chance to form up our specific overflows I don’t see how it can be implemented.
Also you haven’t mentioned how rewards work under your new system – if there’s no “end event” that gives loot – does every event give loot? How does it work?
If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”