Guild Wars 2

Forum bugs, nice sign of a company that cares about feedback… Squash!

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

I knew that when I started. It was much the same from GW1 that I spent a few years in. But not once have I said in forums “GW2 needs public dungeons like UO does/did etc”. It’s called self control. Lest why would I screw up my gameplay having multiple games with the same exact gameplay? Oh yeah, they [public school systems] teach kids now-a-days (for some time now) how the hive mind is king and everyone/everything should be the same. It gives marketing a single target to focus on (makes them happy), rather than the diversity of interest that is hard to contain. So if one game is popular using instanced raiding, every game needs to have it, comrade.

I have already explained, in detail, why instances matter, and why we need them here . I concluded that instances are essentially the only decent way to properly showcase content, and a lack of them leaves potential players with the impression that ANet do not have confidence in their own content..

It’s absolutely true that blindly copying superficial aspects of WoW in the hopes that its success will magically transfer over is an absolutely terrible idea. But instanced raids can be justified on their own merits without appealing to that sort of magical thinking.

Daywolf.2630:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

I knew that when I started. It was much the same from GW1 that I spent a few years in. But not once have I said in forums “GW2 needs public dungeons like UO does/did etc”. It’s called self control. Lest why would I screw up my gameplay having multiple games with the same exact gameplay? Oh yeah, they [public school systems] teach kids now-a-days (for some time now) how the hive mind is king and everyone/everything should be the same. It gives marketing a single target to focus on (makes them happy), rather than the diversity of interest that is hard to contain. So if one game is popular using instanced raiding, every game needs to have it, comrade.

you are being pretty deceptive.

because that same argument you call logic, can be applied to any feature that happens to be in other games.

*Party Dungeons
*Classes
*Events
*Quest
*Instanced PvP

list goes on.

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Except the potential of their combat system suggests otherwise. So its no wonder so many of us dont want to leave and want them utilise that potential.

Also to add to that statement many of the systems within the combat system are unused by casual players. They may as well scrap half their combat system if they dont intend to develop hardcore content. Because its being unused and creates extra balance issues. But im sure noone wants that. :P

Daywolf.2630:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

I knew that when I started. It was much the same from GW1 that I spent a few years in. But not once have I said in forums “GW2 needs public dungeons like UO does/did etc”. It’s called self control. Lest why would I screw up my gameplay having multiple games with the same exact gameplay? Oh yeah, they [public school systems] teach kids now-a-days (for some time now) how the hive mind is king and everyone/everything should be the same. It gives marketing a single target to focus on (makes them happy), rather than the diversity of interest that is hard to contain. So if one game is popular using instanced raiding, every game needs to have it, comrade.

Quite confused right now. Because wanting diversity of content is exactly the reason I’d like raids, or well, some kind of actually challenging content in this game.

And GW2 raids would play WAY different than any other game’s raids.

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players. I sincerely doubt they’ll suddenly go to wildstar difficulty level. Other games like FFXIV do quite a decent job at making raids both challenging and accessible so I see no reason why anet couldn’t do this if they wanted to.

…And to be fair, we really don’t know how many people play dungeons/fractals atm. People are quick to judge it as “dead content”. It’s less than open world PvE sure, but is it less than the sPvP community? I’m not sure.

spoj.9672:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Except the potential of their combat system suggests otherwise. So its no wonder so many of us dont want to leave and want them utilise that potential.

Also to add to that statement many of the systems within the combat system are unused by casual players. They may as well scrap half their combat system if they dont intend to develop hardcore content. Because its being unused and creates extra balance issues. But im sure noone wants that. :P

They made a great combat system we all agree, that still doesn’t mean they’re going to narrowcast content against their demos.

Jerus.4350:

I can agree with everything you say up until the last paragraph. Sorry but when you promote “challenging content” as much as they have when announcing this expansion it’s nothing but a play to try to entice players like me.

I can’t help but feel they’re being deceptive for that purpose.

Argue the numbers issue, sure, that’s fine, as a business if you can capture the majority of your audience with kitten content that’s cheaper to make, well that simply makes sense.

But, when you try to coat that in some form of “no no, this is high end content, see we’re doing something cool,” nope, actions speak louder than words, ANet is simply being deceptive to try and grasp an audience they don’t really care about but are willing to lie to in hopes of grabbing a little extra cash.

Really as simple as that from where I stand.

Colin’s recent comments do nothing but enforce my beliefs. “no we haven’t talked about it yet, we’ll get to it,” sure, cause all the talk about it hasn’t been enough to prompt a little bit of discussion from the devs? Ok, yeah, kitten that. It’s not as if I expect full disclosure, I just expect a little bit of hinting towards what their ideas are. Do they see “challenge” as Triple Trouble type herding cats… Well I can’t help but feel that’s what we’ll get, and again, kitten that.

We talk enough that they know their audience, if they had challenging content they could shut us up quite easily, but they refuse to do so, and that’s just enforcing the belief that they’re a shady company not worth trusting.

There’s been lots of talk between us dungeon type folks about Wildstar, when you look at their forum you see constant correspondence about dungeons. Bugs don’t get left for months on end, at least not without some sort of action taken, and that’s not mentioning a near instant reaction to their acceptance of existence. We look at Lupi’s Necrid Bolt hitting in Melee, or the SNAFU “object hitbox” issue, and well, it really doesn’t feel like ANet cares at all. They’re too busy putting out stuff to rake in our money to upkeep their game in a meaningful way.

In the end, well, I see ANet as no better than that shady pusher trying to get people hooked to rake in some money and they really don’t care about their customers at all. As a business it makes sense to a degree, but they shouldn’t be surprised when their customers have attitudes like mine full if distrust and disgust.

This is our essential disagreement I think.

You see a brazen moneygrab and I see them making stuff for people that want different things than you, and honestly ones with easier needs to meet.

And wildstar is a dangerous example to bring up in this discussion, humans have pattern-forming minds.

I would agree with you that they’ve largely abandoned dungeons, and I can speculate why. (From Anets pov they’re probably a failure). The “OMG THEY’RE EVIL” thing is silly to me. They’re a game comany like other game companies. THey want to make a good game, they want to make things that people play, they want to make money.

I think it’s safe to say that amongst those three things dungeons haven’t worked out for them, so I wouldn’t expect too much more on that line. ‘Pleasantly surprised’ is a better risk than “let down and dissapointed”.

Knighthonor.4061:

you are being pretty deceptive.

because that same argument you call logic, can be applied to any feature that happens to be in other games.

*Party Dungeons
*Classes
*Events
*Quest
*Instanced PvP

list goes on.

What other games? Is it really necessary to mishmash single-player, multi-player and mmo all together? Fine dining out of a dumpster, bon appétit.

Instancing is not mmo, it’s multi-player. Instance raids isn’t even really raiding, it’s just dungeoning with a large group in some multi-player game instance. The word “raid” was stolen long ago.

If they just put The Underworld in 8 man instance.. all would be solved.

2 Guard, 2 War, 2 Ele, 2 Thief.

Split into 4..
Stealth about the place.. Icebow.. Reflect.. might stack(bannerkitten)

Do all the missions.. problem solved. Raid idea right here anet come get it.

What would making it 8man solve?

People are treating multi-group content like a magic bullet to — something?

10 man instances open the possibility for greater class diversity in a controlled group environment. Its not just about getting good instanced content. It can also solve diversity and class exclusion issues.

I admire your confidence that it will fix the class issues, but especially considering your general attitude I find it absurdly (and out of character-ish) optimistic.

We know how this goes with other games. Even in 40+ groups what’s considered acceptable and useful doesn’t change much, and if the content is actually hard the dichotomy is even greater.

Well look at this way. With 5 man instances theres only ever going to be 4-5 meta classes. With more slots it opens up greater possibilities. It still depends on class balance and the content. But at least its possible rather than impossible.

Currently there are 6 classes that can comfortably fit in the meta. But with only 5 slots the engi gets shafted most of the time. And we dont have the space to take both a mesmer and a guard at the same time. Its restrictions like that which disappear when group sizes increase.

spoj.9672:

Well look at this way. With 5 man instances theres only ever going to be 4-5 meta classes. With more slots it opens up greater possibilities. It still depends on class balance and the content. But at least its possible rather than impossible.

Currently there are 6 classes that can comfortably fit in the meta. But with only 5 slots the engi gets shafted most of the time. And we dont have the space to take both a mesmer and a guard at the same time. Its restrictions like that which disappear when group sizes increase.

True, but my thinking is this:

Right now you will need certain things for group coverage (actual makeup might be wrong, I’m not up to date on the bleeding edge comps):

1 PS per party for might
1 Ele per party for fury (and you want a lot of frostbows anyawys, depending on how much they nerf them)
(possibly) 1 guard per party to assure protection uptime
1) engineer (total in raid) for maximum vuln.

With buff caps, we’re left in a similar situation for Rangers, if 1 could give frost spirit & spotter to the whole raid, it’d be a good slot, but likely they can’t.

Once you have your fury/might/protection/vuln, barring gimmick fights, it seems like it’d be back to the ’whatever’s max DPS after HOT comes out’.

The essential problem is that the core of the meta is ‘boon/condition coverage + max DPS’. Some classes simply don’t fit well in that setup, and they won’t in the future for the same reason they don’t now.

~~~

I admit they could get around it by doing the dreaded “ONLY CONDITIONS” or “ONLY RANGED ATTACK” fights, but at best that leads to char swapping (especially with the ease of gearing up a character in GW2) by fight.

Yeah except you are ignoring utility classes from that analysis. Use of stealth and portals is what saves the most time.

So the way i see it is:
1 war for might + banners
1 Ele for fury + dps
1 engi for vuln + perma immob
1 ranger for spotter + frost spirit
1 thief for stealth
1 guard for aegis/stab/reflect
1 mes for portal + extra reflects
Extra slots filled with eles for DPS.

That just leaves out necro. The rest of the slots would be filled with eles for dps (maybe sacrifice a utility class for more eles) or extra utility classes. So double mesmer for back to back portals etc. Or to allow split compositions.

But the thing is with the elite specs and new content. They can very easily incentivise other less popular classes. For example create encounters which make epidemic almost compulsory in the meta. Or incentivise control conditions or unpopular combo fields. Then every class can be in a favourable position for at least something.

cranos.5913:

…And to be fair, we really don’t know how many people play dungeons/fractals atm. People are quick to judge it as “dead content”. It’s less than open world PvE sure, but is it less than the sPvP community? I’m not sure.

It also depends on the loot and reward. Why play something that requires you to do something that is diffucult if you could also just press 1 and watch youtube videos, a tv series or a movie while you do it with almost the same loot?

spoj.9672:

Yeah except you are ignoring utility classes from that analysis. Use of stealth and portals is what saves the most time.

So the way i see it is:
1 war for might + banners
1 Ele for fury + dps
1 engi for vuln + perma immob
1 ranger for spotter + frost spirit
1 thief for stealth
1 guard for aegis/stab/reflect
1 mes for portal + extra reflects
Extra slots filled with eles for DPS.

That just leaves out necro. The rest of the slots would be filled with eles for dps (maybe sacrifice a utility class for more eles) or extra utility classes. So double mesmer for back to back portals etc. Or to allow split compositions.

But the thing is with the elite specs and new content. They can very easily incentivise other less popular classes. For example create encounters which make epidemic almost compulsory in the meta. Or incentivise control conditions or unpopular combo fields. Then every class can be in a favourable position for at least something.

The 5 target buff cap means you need a boon source per group right? Similarly it means that spotter+frost won’t support the whole raid but just 5 players.

Also, that’s assuming that they design the skippable content knowing what they know now. That might be the case, but it very much might not

(I’m sloppy sloppy drunk: this post looks okay, but if it’s offensive in some way I hope you forgive me)

Windsagio.1340:

This is our essential disagreement I think.

You see a brazen moneygrab and I see them making stuff for people that want different things than you, and honestly ones with easier needs to meet.

And wildstar is a dangerous example to bring up in this discussion, humans have pattern-forming minds.

I would agree with you that they’ve largely abandoned dungeons, and I can speculate why. (From Anets pov they’re probably a failure). The “OMG THEY’RE EVIL” thing is silly to me. They’re a game comany like other game companies. THey want to make a good game, they want to make things that people play, they want to make money.

I think it’s safe to say that amongst those three things dungeons haven’t worked out for them, so I wouldn’t expect too much more on that line. ‘Pleasantly surprised’ is a better risk than “let down and dissapointed”.

If people read Wildstar and instantly discredit anything discussed they’re not worth talking to, so I don’t mind if those people completely miss the point, they wouldn’t understand anyways.

There’s quite a big difference between making money (PLEASE for the love of god give me a reason to give you money ANet!) and being deceptive.

And again, i’ll point out that raids would have the opportunity to address many of the failures of dungeons promoting a more complete diversity of roles and professions… but instead of discussing raids we’re going on about arguments that have been repeated ad nauseam.

Windsagio.1340:

I admire your confidence that it will fix the class issues, but especially considering your general attitude I find it absurdly (and out of character-ish) optimistic.

We know how this goes with other games. Even in 40+ groups what’s considered acceptable and useful doesn’t change much, and if the content is actually hard the dichotomy is even greater.

Only in poorly made content.

Ugh, open your mind man.

Content made for a diverse set of builds will use a diverse set of builds. If made ideally for this game it will allow an even wider set of builds.

I’ll just point up to my raid example I posted before, you’d have content that defensive gear would likely be wanted, where Condi would surely have a place and then Power damage nice as always. All 3 being part of your team.

All it takes is making content that plays to different strengths, it’s not all that complicated.

I’m not in a state to respond well right now, I’ll read your example raid idea nad give it a shot in the morning. Now isn’ta good teim ><

Windsagio.1340:

I’m not in a state to respond well right now, I’ll read your example raid idea nad give it a shot in the morning. Now isn’ta good teim ><

:D I’m jealous, I just got off work and all the stores are closed no drinks for me till morning! arg.

cranos.5913:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players.

Except that most of people that want this kind of content do want it to be for hardcore players (or at least as hardcore as they perceive themselves to be).

Astralporing.1957:

cranos.5913:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players.

Except that most of people that want this kind of content do want it to be for hardcore players (or at least as hardcore as they perceive themselves to be).

Depends on what you mean. MMOs have taken the words “hardcore” to mean those who seek challenge and “casual” to mean those that just want to mess around in the world.

I don’t like those new definitions. I’ve always seen the “hardcore” as those who just spend a lot of time and energy in the game, and “casual” to mean those that don’t.

In that I fully feel that casual can still want a challenge. I play GW2 quite casually, especially compared to how I played my old games where I’d spend a whole day just studying things to optimize myself for later events. Now, Well when I log in it’s for maybe an hour or two of play then I’m out. To me that’s quite casual, but I still want a challenge for while I’m playing.

This is what held me off from fractals for so long as they were simply a huge time investment that as a casual (by definition) player I couldn’t deal with. But, eventually I found friends to play them with and made them reasonable to complete when I had the time.

I don’t see raids altering the definitions of those two categories. I imagine a raid to still be withing ~30 mins as designed. Upon first encountering them, sure you might see 2+ hours of banging your head, but once they get figured out a bit more and hints spread, it wouldn’t be surprising to see them drop to under an hour. And with practice 10-15 mins for a run.

That’s still casual to me.

That’s how I saw my move from EQ to DCUO, going from 3-4 hours 3-4 days a week of raiding to 3-4 hours a week of raiding with raids that lasted 5-10 mins being quite common. Before I quit that game we had the hardest raid in the game down to 6 mins to complete, the second hardest at around 10-15 for regular casual farming.

Again, I see myself as casual, jsut when I log into a game I don’t want to be just running through the motions to farm stuff, I want to be banging my head on something that interests me. So I’m casual but challenge focused.

Astralporing.1957:

cranos.5913:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players.

Except that most of people that want this kind of content do want it to be for hardcore players (or at least as hardcore as they perceive themselves to be).

Depends on what you call casual and hardcore. FFXIV for example has this thing called “trials”, basically it’s single raid boss instances with a possible hard mode attached to it. It’s casual in the way that it doesn’t take hours upon hours to complete, but still sufficiently hard to provide a challenge. While that obviously doesn’t reach all players in the game (but let’s be fair, no content does), it would still reach a much broader audience than your 4 hour 40man raids. It’s also something I could see these “guild raids” from the CDI become btw.

Now I’m not saying I necessarily want this type of instance. It’s just an example of raid type gameplay that would be played by more than the “1%”.

cranos.5913:

CorrynnStarr.7942:

wasnt trying to compare combat system to combat system, my point was more towards Sony focusing on the needs of the minority which complained more then those that were happy with the game in its current state. they catered to that crowd and it cost them their game. this has nothing to do with the playstyles of the 2 games being discussed and more towards who Anet should be keeping happy if they want continue maintaining its current player base. Cuz what sony did was gave in to the demands of a vocal few, and it cost them the majority. Keep in mind here, I am expressing MY opinion as to why I think its a good or bad idea to add another gamestyle to the game. This is what I think and why I think it. Ill wager there are a lot of people who feel the same way I do about it, they are just not as vocal as those not happy wit hthe game cuz they are well… happy with it.

Fair enough, I misunderstood then. For 3 years they almost solely catered to the casual PvEr. They didn’t start focusing on the hardcore when fractals came out or after aetherpath or the fractured patch (only things we got in 3 years btw), so from past experience we can clearly see who their main audience is. Just because they add maybe 1 or 2 new instances in an actual expansion won’t suddenly make them turn 180 degrees and start catering to the hardcore. Your worrying about anet’s focus basically comes out of nowhere.

Right, and I understand where their focus is. But the arguement at hand is “why dont they do more for hardcore and why not introduce raids?” I was attempting to show justification for them not to was all. I feel that a new mode would not be as beneficial as it would be detrimental to the game is all. Numerous times Ive explained why, for reference as to why it would be detrimental at least, I feel this way about it. It is for Anet to determine the rationale and ultimate acceptance or denial of the topic in question.

P.S. sorry for the late post on this was busy this weekend and didnt have a chance to respond sooner.

cranos.5913:

Astralporing.1957:

cranos.5913:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players.

Except that most of people that want this kind of content do want it to be for hardcore players (or at least as hardcore as they perceive themselves to be).

Depends on what you call casual and hardcore. FFXIV for example has this thing called “trials”, basically it’s single raid boss instances with a possible hard mode attached to it. It’s casual in the way that it doesn’t take hours upon hours to complete, but still sufficiently hard to provide a challenge. While that obviously doesn’t reach all players in the game (but let’s be fair, no content does), it would still reach a much broader audience than your 4 hour 40man raids. It’s also something I could see these “guild raids” from the CDI become btw.

Now I’m not saying I necessarily want this type of instance. It’s just an example of raid type gameplay that would be played by more than the “1%”.

I think Anet attempted this idea already, They added a star to some of the content that you had completed in the LS so that you could go back and try it on a harder difficulty iirc. As to whether it was more of a challenge for anyone or not, I will leave that to you all to determine. I myself thought it wasnt that much harder.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

cranos.5913:

Astralporing.1957:

cranos.5913:

Windsagio.1340:

I think the end answer, if I’m perfectly frank is “This game just isn’t for really hardcore dungeon types”.

Prob not, but there’s no reason for challenging content to be only for really hardcore players.

Except that most of people that want this kind of content do want it to be for hardcore players (or at least as hardcore as they perceive themselves to be).

Depends on what you call casual and hardcore. FFXIV for example has this thing called “trials”, basically it’s single raid boss instances with a possible hard mode attached to it. It’s casual in the way that it doesn’t take hours upon hours to complete, but still sufficiently hard to provide a challenge. While that obviously doesn’t reach all players in the game (but let’s be fair, no content does), it would still reach a much broader audience than your 4 hour 40man raids. It’s also something I could see these “guild raids” from the CDI become btw.

Now I’m not saying I necessarily want this type of instance. It’s just an example of raid type gameplay that would be played by more than the “1%”.

I think Anet attempted this idea already, They added a star to some of the content that you had completed in the LS so that you could go back and try it on a harder difficulty iirc. As to whether it was more of a challenge for anyone or not, I will leave that to you all to determine. I myself thought it wasnt that much harder.

We’re talking about actual difficult 8 man fights here. Current LS is incredibly easy, even achievement-wise. Anyway, it’s just 1 example of raid type content that isn’t necessarily only for the hardcore. They could also simply make raids the size of current dungeons, giving it a completion time from anywhere between 20min-2h depending on length/skill.

That being said, some of the bosses in LS, if tweaked for groups could make for fun and challenging content. Personally I’m hoping for a glint’s lair fractal.

Giobonello.2530:

This has prolly been discussed for awhile, but I am back to the game now after being gone for almost 2 years. During this lapse I played quite a bit of other MMOs. Coming back to GW2 I can say it’s tied with WoW as my favorite MMO if not my outright favorite.

Like many of you I don’t want GW2 to be like WoW; except for one thing that I believe WoW does exceptionally well, and that is raids.

Although PUG-oriented Raids are a 50/50 shot at being decent, a friendly guild-oriented one would be amazing (as they are in WoW). With the exceptional art team at arena.net, they could design an amazing raid. Just releasing a short 10 man raid proof-of-concept would prove that the community would embrace and enjoy a new gaming option. The fact that Fractals are successful proved that raids could be as well; they would just need to scale up a Fractal-like experience to 10 players.

Raids are something Guild Wars will never do ever . it is just not there style

challenging content in general isn’t their style.

But it should be. Its such a wasted opportunity to have this combat and build system and no challenging instanced content to take advantage of it. :<

spoj.9672:

But it should be. Its such a wasted opportunity to have this combat and build system and no challenging instanced content to take advantage of it. :<

Indeed, but I think they should first show that they can do challenging dungeons that aren’t easily exploited, then we can scale them up to larger parties. There would be little difference between groups of 5 stacking in a corner and groups of 10 stacking in a corner.

Look at fractals for reference. It shows they can do it. And stacking in a corner hasnt been a thing for over a year….

spoj.9672:

Look at fractals for reference. It shows they can do it. And stacking in a corner hasnt been a thing for over a year….

He’s been told that repeatedly, including by myself. Doesn’t seem to make a difference.

spoj.9672:

Look at fractals for reference. It shows they can do it. And stacking in a corner hasnt been a thing for over a year….

This, FGS sure did a lot of damage to pug tactics. They keep stacking bosses just because…

I know in fractals they dont stack very much anymore, but in dungeons, stacking is still a valid and mainstream way to do things in PUGS… usually guild runs are not as stacky, due to everyone tends to know each others playstyles and how best to compliment them. But in a PUG, I still see alot of people cry for stacking.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

I know in fractals they dont stack very much anymore, but in dungeons, stacking is still a valid and mainstream way to do things in PUGS… usually guild runs are not as stacky, due to everyone tends to know each others playstyles and how best to compliment them. But in a PUG, I still see alot of people cry for stacking.

Exactly, even though it makes zero sense. Stacking was a thing with FGS, after that got nerfed at least for bosses it’s mostly useless.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

I know in fractals they dont stack very much anymore, but in dungeons, stacking is still a valid and mainstream way to do things in PUGS… usually guild runs are not as stacky, due to everyone tends to know each others playstyles and how best to compliment them. But in a PUG, I still see alot of people cry for stacking.

You want to make sure you’re close enough to get buffs and stuff, but that doesn’t require a tight stack. Sometimes walling can be nice, or line-of-sighting to cleave more, but the old style corner stacking should be dead.

Pugs gon’ be pugs.

Thats simply because pugs dont understand why stacking existed. They are copying the old fgs strategies without realising why it was being done. Back when fgs was still a thing you would get pug groups with no eles stacking in fgs spots (logic!). Pugs dont have a clue and they take over a year to catch up to the actual meta.

#friendsdontletfriendsPUG

Why does this thread keep derailing to the same topics that have been discussed over and over in which no side will budge regardless of information provided? Seems pretty futile to me.

I think this thread has brought up a good point with raids, and I think they could be an answer to the issues people have right now with dungeons and other content. It could be better than anything before. Something that uses all that stuff and learns from it to create content that has more build and role diversity, having more room and promoting the use of more professions. Something that has interesting mechanics to nullify some of the old tricks or penalize us for using them.

The possibilities are endless, but we continue to squabble about stacking or zerk gear… gah.. I’m starting to understand why the ANet staff rarely talks, and that scares me.

you guys keep overselling the no more stacking thing. It’s not like using LOS to control an enemy’s position isn’t a thing.

well, considering that LOSing usually ends up with the group stacking behind a small outcropping to getthe mob to come to them… and end up beeting its rear end in the same spot… Id call that stacking. but tomato tomahto…

Jerus.4350:

Why does this thread keep derailing to the same topics that have been discussed over and over in which no side will budge regardless of information provided? Seems pretty futile to me.

I think this thread has brought up a good point with raids, and I think they could be an answer to the issues people have right now with dungeons and other content. It could be better than anything before. Something that uses all that stuff and learns from it to create content that has more build and role diversity, having more room and promoting the use of more professions. Something that has interesting mechanics to nullify some of the old tricks or penalize us for using them.

The possibilities are endless, but we continue to squabble about stacking or zerk gear… gah.. I’m starting to understand why the ANet staff rarely talks, and that scares me.

The concern would be that what multi-group content legitimately adds is more logistics and planning.

Traditionally they’re linked to longer encounters, but I’d agree that’s not a requirement, and GW has been good about bucking that kind of tradition.

~~~

And I read your ideas — they’re good, but almost none of them (the exception being team splitting) need multigroup to function.

This leaves us with the ’what’s it add?’ question, and the answer seems to be:

1) The ability to run with more of your friends at once
2) “Difficulty” via higher organizational and logistical requirements
3) A possible loosening of the ‘meta’ group limitations (although I would strongly argue about this last one)
4) Exclusive content through the organizational limitations and possible general difficulty.

ignoring split mechanics is ignoring a major part of it.

Fact is it’s tough to promote a diverse set of builds and types of content. Splitting makes that easy. Condi’s go to A, Power to B, Defence to C. Simple.

And splitting in a 5 man would hardly be fair to call group content.

As for the need of multigroup, maybe not, but what I said needs splitting, and with that is far more resonable with multigroup because of the above. If you just had those bosses in sequence it’d be people just swapping builds between them, not really the diversity I’d call exciting to see.
~~~
I have a tough time agreeing with your second point as I don’t think there will be any difficulty or really any logistical problems and I doubt the organization would be all that intricate either, but surely moreso than currently.

As for the third point, there would most definitely be a meta, but it would loosen, a lot of stuff woudl shift simply because of the number 10 vs 5. Instantly any personal dps choice is only half as important to the group on any individual encounter (split mechanics would be different). As 50% on one person in 5 man is about 10% loss, in a 10 man it’d be a 5% loss. That’s an interesting change when you consider support/control/utility strengths against it. Also, the multigroup thing wouldn’t be in a vacuum, I think it’d be a great time to introduce new mechanics to more pinpoint and punish the meta and promote less utilized stuff. Rapid hits of low-moderate damage from enemies strengthening retal and maybe confusion while nearly nullifying blind. Spike and consistent boon application on enemies to promote different types of boon stripping. Lots of stuff could be expanded upon, and while not limited to multi group it’d be a good place to unleash it.

Your fourth point certainly rings true with the general difficulty. But that would be true of any challenging content, something that we’ve been told we’re getting already. Not all content is built for everyone, and that’s not a problem.

“Raids can be painful, but do not fear the bosses you will face. Hard group content makes stronger players.”

ups!….

Lukhas.1962:

“Raids can be painful, but do not fear the bosses you will face. Hard group content makes stronger players.”

ups!….

We can dream I guess ;D

FISKING TIME!

Jerus.4350:

ignoring split mechanics is ignoring a major part of it.

Fact is it’s tough to promote a diverse set of builds and types of content. Splitting makes that easy. Condi’s go to A, Power to B, Defence to C. Simple.

And splitting in a 5 man would hardly be fair to call group content.

As for the need of multigroup, maybe not, but what I said needs splitting, and with that is far more resonable with multigroup because of the above. If you just had those bosses in sequence it’d be people just swapping builds between them, not really the diversity I’d call exciting to see.
~~~
I have a tough time agreeing with your second point as I don’t think there will be any difficulty or really any logistical problems and I doubt the organization would be all that intricate either, but surely moreso than currently.

My point is that the difficulty that’s added is logistical. The difficulty in raids, traditionally, was in getting a big enough group together that could both play at least well enough to stay out of the circles and show up regularly, and having at least someone with enough area awareness to manage the chaos. There’s nothing encounter-wise more difficult in raids inherently except for these largely artifical logistical issues.

As for the third point, there would most definitely be a meta, but it would loosen, a lot of stuff woudl shift simply because of the number 10 vs 5. Instantly any personal dps choice is only half as important to the group on any individual encounter (split mechanics would be different). As 50% on one person in 5 man is about 10% loss, in a 10 man it’d be a 5% loss. That’s an interesting change when you consider support/control/utility strengths against it. Also, the multigroup thing wouldn’t be in a vacuum, I think it’d be a great time to introduce new mechanics to more pinpoint and punish the meta and promote less utilized stuff. Rapid hits of low-moderate damage from enemies strengthening retal and maybe confusion while nearly nullifying blind. Spike and consistent boon application on enemies to promote different types of boon stripping. Lots of stuff could be expanded upon, and while not limited to multi group it’d be a good place to unleash it.

I have a few problems with this. First of all, 1 subpar dps being less of a loss will do nothing to stall the obsession with optimization. Unless you’re doing record runs now, the dps loss isn’t terribly meaningful to success, but we still get these pushes to a tight ‘meta’. There are things that Arenanet will do to impact the current preferred party comps, but I’m just not convinced that raids alone will solve the problem.

—Gimmick fights will sometimes, but that’s a pretty sledgehammery solution.
—Raising the buff cap (so you need fewer players for party support) would help, and would really help only for raids. If 1 PS warrior could support 2 groups in the final fight, and 1 ranger could provide frost spirit and spotter for both groups, then we’d have some improved class variety that only multi-group encounters could add.

Your fourth point certainly rings true with the general difficulty. But that would be true of any challenging content, something that we’ve been told we’re getting already. Not all content is built for everyone, and that’s not a problem.

My issue is that raids – by being raids – are an additional barrier beyond the difficulty of the content.

Unless you run with a group (and somewhat depending on your class) it can be really hard to get a full pickup group for a high fractal or Arah now (although in fractals I honestly think that’s one of the advantages of swamp-rolling, anything in there can be started easily with a not-full group),

Now, you have to fill 9 slots to pug that hard new content instead of filling 4. This doesnt’ impact people in organized dungeoneering guilds, but it’s a HUGE barrier of entry to people that are pugging — just getting the group going will be a pain then. That’s part of the logistical challenge I was trying to get at with point 2.

I think you overestimate the focus on optimization. I’ve never been kicked from a dungeon for using an Energy sigil (10% lost in night dungeons).

You do have a point with having to find people, but I’ve never really found it difficult to gather 5 people, I can’t imagine 5 more would be all that bad. Only at really weird times of day.

Windsagio.1340:

Unless you run with a group (and somewhat depending on your class) it can be really hard to get a full pickup group for a high fractal or Arah now (although in fractals I honestly think that’s one of the advantages of swamp-rolling, anything in there can be started easily with a not-full group),

Now, you have to fill 9 slots to pug that hard new content instead of filling 4. This doesnt’ impact people in organized dungeoneering guilds, but it’s a HUGE barrier of entry to people that are pugging — just getting the group going will be a pain then. That’s part of the logistical challenge I was trying to get at with point 2.

I think this is both a positive and a negative point though. PvE guilds have been complaining there’s nothing in game you need a guild for, that it’s hard to keep members because there’s no focus as opposed to WvW oriented guilds. So finally, there would be something a guild is useful for in pve aside from chatting and getting a mf buff.

Considering the CDI was called guild raids, there’s even a good chance these raids would use the guild mission system. If that’s the case, only guilds could complete them in the first place.