Guild Wars 2

The new fractals are fun and just the right level of challenge, imo.

Well done, ANet.

When guild halls first came out, we used one of the commemorative statues as an informal memorial for a guildee we lost back in 2013 to epilepsy. This morning, I was able to add his name and information in front of that statue.

Thank you for giving us a way to do this.

Mr Cranch.3768:

What OP said. I understand the story reasons but honestly, once it is opened on one character, alts should have access. I don’t want to replay the story or squander a 1000 currency (in my case, 10 times) to portal into a new zone.

The item is permanent and account bound. You only have to buy it once then use it on all your alts to get to the first waypoint.

Last night, a guildee theorized it might be the raving asura from the uncategorized fractal. I know that doesn’t help in identifying him (it does sound like a he to me as well), but I thought it was interesting.

The raving asura yells something about being abandoned after the last fight in the uncategorized instance – could be some lost researcher trapped in chaos.

JayMack.8295:

Effectively you want a story mode for Raids, which is soloable. If they made it a no-reward purely story instance (or some minor one-time only reward), then I wouldn’t have an issue with that.

Issue with that is, and I expect this is a frustration Bobby experiences, is that doing that requires resources that he’s probably not in control of, i.e. people to implement it, people to adjust the boss encounters so they can be soloable, adjust the enemy encounters, etc. etc. etc.

And frankly, I’d rather he focus on creating good stories for raids and having someone else worrying about the implementation or the resources to do a story mode rather than have a basic raid with a lack of story or one so disconnected from the world it’s irrelevant and not worth caring about.

I think the raid storytelling is some of the best group storytelling in the game. It beats the storytelling in dungeons by a mile, so I want all of the community to be able to experience it as well (as I’m sure Bobby does!). I hope that a story mode IS implemented at some point but if they don’t have the resources available to do that, I’d rather he still sticks to making raids have a compelling and interesting story that is relevant to the world of Tyria.

I get the frustration, I do. I had to wrangle together 3- 4 other people just to get the full story experience of dungeons since most groups want to rush through, skip cutscenes and not absorb the story (a balance they’ve actually quite brilliantly achieved in raids) and I would have killed for a solo story mode for them back then.

Well said.

As someone who has taken more than my share of swings with the axe, I do applaud Bobby for putting his neck out to talk and interact with the community on this.

I agree that the issue is not with the story – and that the raid story is extremely well done.

It is solely an issue of accessibility – which goes back to the mechanical implementation of raiding.

There definitely needs to be a better way for players to experience this story – whether it is through tiered difficulties in raiding (my vote) or some other interactive playable content. The important part is that the player gets to feel like the hero of the story. Relying on access to cleared instances really feels like the opposite of that – nothing more than a guided tour from the “real heroes.”

But again, I don’t see this as something Bobby can fix – and his work on the story has been amazing.

But, as he is the only raid developer to really engage with the community on this topic, he is the one that gets to dodge our swinging axes .

Absurdo.8309:

Seems anti-raid to me. And zero constructive suggestions in this thread. We sould probably close it.

Again, wanting to see something improved is not the same as being against that thing. It is the opposite actually.

And, just because you disagree with suggestions does not mean they aren’t constructive or useful. It just means you disagree and that we should continue to engage in civil and healthy dialogue on that topic.

If people would stop trying to break the conversation into pro- and anti- camps and actually discuss potential compromises/solutions, this could be a very powerful discussion. No one wants the game to fail – and (almost) no one wants raids to go away. To the people that do want raids to go away, I will say it now – I disagree with that point of view adamantly. I simply see room for improvement.

If you feel there is no room to compromise or no improvements are needed, then say that and let the people willing to have that conversation do so without the constant “you’re wrong and always will be – get over it” posts. Saying that once gets your point across. Saying it after every single post you disagree with adds nothing to the conversation.

Please stop assuming that people are anti-raid simply because they disagree with some elements of how raids are currently implemented.

If many of us were anti-raid, we would be call for the removal of raids. While I have seen that a few times, it is very very rare.

In truth, most of the posters I see are very much pro-raiding. They just have concerns about how it is currently implemented in the game. Wanting to see something improved (even if you disagree about how those improvements manifest) is the exact opposite of anti-raid.

I want to see more support for raids, not less.

As for the Arah/Aetherpath argument, we’ve addressed that many many times. There are huge accessibility differences between that content and how they have implemented raids, most notably the use of enrage timers. If they had implemented the raids in the same way they implemented Aetherpath (one of my FAVORITE things in the game), I would have absolutely no issues with them. I have said this every time you have brought this argument up. The comparison between raiding and that content is faulty.

So, to repeat I DO NOT HATE RAIDS. I like raiding. I want to see more people raiding.

None of that changes the argument people are putting forward in this thread, however. The current story arcs began in the raid. While that experience may not be 100% required to play and understand the game, it is still an important part of the current story experience. There are players left out of that experience that feel disenfranchised and much less enthusiastic about what we are doing now in game because of that exclusion. I know this because I hear from them daily.

So, to repeat just because someone wants to see something improved does not mean they hate that thing. In fact, the exact opposite is true. So please stop the silly argument that people hate raiding just because they want to see some changes.

BobbyStein.2315:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Kai.9264:

I haven’t played the raids yet, I don’t know if I ever will but, I do know that they are also about the white mantle. So, is the raid story important for the living world story? does the raid happen bevor or after the LW?

muchas gracias

If you go into the third raid wing and talk to Glenna and her journal, and talk to Bennet in Bloodstone Fen, and read the three journals whos pages are scattered across Bloodstone Fen, you will get about 95% of the raid story.

The only things you’ll really miss is the visual and dialogue of the bosses themselves.

If you can join a player who has completed the raid for the week, you can explore the cleared raid instance and talk to the characters that are there, find the collectables, inspect the clues, etc. There are a few achievements you can get this way. Sometimes folks will post on Reddit or Twitter that they will let people in.

My advice: go to the raid lobby in Lion’s Arch or use LFG to find a cleared instance if you’re not seeing a lot of people hanging outside the Forsaken Thicket portal in Verdant Brink. But if you can’t readily find a person who can open it for you, Konig’s suggestion is a good one. Enter each raid, talk to the characters, and read what you can in the first area. It’ll provide a bit of context. Then when you play Episode 1 you’ll have a little extra reference when you read the notes and hear the dialog.

And if you catch me in the game (I usually play on NA but sometimes switch to EU) give me a shout.

Once again, you are missing an extremely important point. This is a video game. It isn’t about hearing the story secondhand, watching a youtube video (or even in game cinematic) or getting a guided tour from the “real heroes.”

It is about experiencing the content as the hero of the story (quoting from day one – “this is my story”).

The current raid model limits that experience. You need to either make them more accessible (my vote) or not use them as a storytelling tool – especially if that story ties into the current narrative (which it does – the raid is chapter one of the current story).

Dara Potocska.8196:

Hey guys!

This issue is affects multiple areas in the game: such as dolyaks in wvw, raid encounters, and the open world events we’ve been putting out the last few releases (to give a few examples). Any fix that touches so many parts of the game has to be made carefully. (As when we rush fixes we sometimes introduce new issues that make things even worse for you guys.) We are still working on this issue and you’ll be updated when more information is available.

Thank you everyone for your continued reports! And thank you for your continued grace and patience while folks on this side work toward a solution that works and is safe.

As someone noted above, a temporary fix would be to remove bounties from the possibilities until you get it fixed.

Guild missions are very important to a lot of people in this game, even though they haven’t been updated in 3 years.

A good number of people feel differently. They feel left out of something important.

While I stand by the statement that the raid was most definitely tied directly to the Living Story (it was in fact the introduction), what really matters is that people are feeling excluded from experiencing (again, important word) part of the story.

And that is something that Anet should care more about, imo.

All three of these were brought back into the game via the Raid. Introducing the bad guy(s) is not a side story. It is not loosely associated.

It is part of the story. Even if it is done quickly and the actual story is short, it is still an important part of the story.

Looking at it after playing LS3, these were the three biggest themes/reveals in the Living Story 3 plotline – all of which a small percentage of the population were introduced to months before the rest of the players.

The raid was the introduction to Living Story 3. The developers may not have intended that to be they case. They may even have tried to keep it from happening.

But it is what it is.

And what we ended up with was, imo, unacceptable (and I’m far from the only one that feels that way).

A small group of players (most of whom probably didn’t even care about the story) came into Living Story 3 having already experienced part of the story. Now, while the rest weren’t completely in the dark or lost, they were left out of that first chapter and left with second hand recounting.

Basically, someone else got to be the hero up to that point, and then they got to come in part way through the narrative.

This was a really bad idea – and I really hope that, as the team develops raids in the future, they keep this in mind. It really is bad storytelling (the story itself is good, the way it is told is not) – and bad form.

BobbyStein.2315:

Ranael.6423:

The debate has strongly shifted since the beginning. The question was not to know if there would be story in the raid that is tied to the world lore, it was more to know if this story was mandatory to understand what happens in LS.
And the answer is NO.
The events of chapter 1 are independent and the circumstances are well explained. The main villain we are chasing in the story is not a villain from the raid. We actually did not know that this very character was in the position of leading this group.
And the final appearance only happens in the story, not the raid. Actually after the raid the question on the survival of this character was basically in the same state than after GW:EN. We only discovered he is alive yesterday.
We also discovered yesterday that things were not as smooth as we thought within a certain group of enemy.

To me, raid story was as promised : a spin off of the main show. If you don’t see it you still understand the main story. If you did see it you get a bit more in touch with some character because you know where they are coming from…. this is exactly what happens in the PS when you are not sylvari and meet Carys and Tegwen or when human player were so happy to meet Riot Alice in Dry Top while I had no clue of who she was.

This is what I’ve been trying to say for months, but couldn’t until the LW content was released. Thank you.

I’ve said this before, but I think that you might be missing the forest for the trees on this one. You can call it a side story as many times as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you introduced most of the primary plotlines in the current story arc in the raid.

Excluding the majority of your players (or developing content that greatly favors a small subset) from the introduction of the antagonists and important plot points (which is exactly what happened here) is not a good way to kick off the story.

Again, I don’t think it was something you did intentionally, but the end results are pretty clear.

This was by no means a side story. Everything that takes place in Bloodstone Fen – and, for the most part, in the Living Story steps – is a direct result of what happened in the raid.

And you left a lot of players out of that experience (again, experience being the key word). It doesn’t matter how many NPCs you have recap it or how many youtube videos you post, that fact doesn’t change. It is about the player experiencing the story as the hero of the narrative. To quote the game from the first day I played a few years ago “this is my story.”

It worries me that you are still trying to defend the “side story” idea. It makes me worry that you will do this exact same thing with the next raid.

Amazing work. Map feels very unique. Fractal is well done (and unique, despite worries about reused assets). Bosses feel engaging (maybe a little too easy but that is subjective). Story steps balance dialogue and action well. The two guild hall upgrades were both well done. I haven’t found a balance change that I would call extreme or unwarranted yet. I haven’t really done the revamped Capricorn pvp map yet, but people seem to like it.

On the con side, my biggest concern comes with content that seems to be slipping through the cracks between the Living Story and other teams – specifically, guild missions . Why were no new guild missions included in this update and is that even a part of the game you plan to add to this year at all? Seems like this would have been the time to add new missions in the HOT maps and I worry that they opportunity may not arise again for a really long time.

The Zealous Templar.3861:

Usually I’m on the other side of an argument with regards to raids but in this case it’s pretty obvious that the raid story is quite important and relevant to the LS3 story.

Spoilers:

The resummoning/re-empowering of Lazarus happens in the raid. You find out that the white mantle hired bandits to kidnap people who are then sacrificed to summon Lazarus. The place where he was awakened was in the stronghold of the faithful, a huge settlement built next to the bloodstone in order to harness its energy, he was awakened by Xera and importantly Caudecus didn’t know about the re-summoning in LS3 episode 1.

One of the most climactic parts of LS3 episode 1 (Lazarus suddenly appearing when we thought he was gone and challenging Caudecus) is explained by the raid story. The recap cutscene is just simply insufficient and doesn’t explain the raid story other than the white mantle were working in the shadows.

The raid story also introduces some intriguing speculation:

Were the white mantle working under High Inquisitor Xera hiding their work from Confessor Caudecus? Had they simply hid their work or completely disobeyed orders from Caudecus? Even the name of the stronghold could have some meaning, ‘Stronghold of the Faithful’ – A faction secretly faithful to the mursaat? whereas the rest of the white mantle are simply loyal to Caudecus and his aspirations for power.

Most of this interesting speculation and knowledge is unknown if you didn’t follow the raid story which isn’t really good tbh. It’s not that the story shouldn’t have been put into the raids but it should have been explained clearly in a much more detailed video.

While I disagree that a simple video is enough to give players the adequate story experience, I will say this is a better description than I gave – and illustrates the problem very well.

I would add that the story of the bloodstone itself began in the raid. It started with the White Mantle fiddling with bloodstone shards taken from a Bloodstone, causing it to become unstable (and eventually explode). In this living story, we are dealing with the results of that explosion – and fighting the forces we were first introduced to in the raid (which, for the record, aren’t there in a cleared instance). There is a direct narrative and causal link between the story in the raid and the living story. Everything we are doing now is a direct result of what the White Mantle were doing with those shards in the raid.

What it amounts to is that the story we are currently playing through started in the raid. It is impossible to rationalize that away.

I second this.

We really need new PVE guild missions – and I worry they are falling off the radar since they aren’t technically living story.

I would love to know where they fit into the content development plan.

Absurdo.8309:

Blaeys.3102:

What you miss is experiencing the beginning of the story – the introduction of the antagonists and primary conflict. It is bad form from a narrative perspective.

And, yes, the “Available Guardian” achievement name does seem a bit like a dev purposefully insulting a portion of their playerbase.

I have not yet played the new story, but I do raid.

I don’t care about spoilers.

Can you tell me specifically how raids tie into the story? I see a lot of complaining from you but no specifics.

Spoilers -Obviously

When you play the story, its pretty obvious. Everything goes back to the bloodstone and the White Mantle siphoning its energy.

They reuse assets from the raid throughout the new zone – including using the Vale Guardian (with almost all of his mechanics) as the final fight in the meta. An NPC down in the crater talks about the significance of the raid story to what is going on now. The final reveal in the last story is directly related to what happens in the raid (even with the no spoiler tag, I’m not gonna list that one).

While I love the use of the VG in open world (they should do that with more dungeon and raid assets), it, the story steps, the bloodstone and the visual assets throughout the zone do make the claim that the raid wasn’t an important part of the story (that players would want to experience for themselves) a bit ridiculous. It was most definitely the introduction of the current story arc, including our introduction to the primary conflict and antagonists.

I know I am harping on this a bit more than feels comfortable (making it very easy for people not wanting things changed to mock me – I realize), but it really is bad from a narrative and interactive storytelling perspective. I going to stand my ground on this point. They need to keep this in mind when developing this kind of content in the future.

What you miss is experiencing the beginning of the story – the introduction of the antagonists and primary conflict. It is bad form from a narrative perspective.

And, yes, the “Available Guardian” achievement name does seem a bit like a dev purposefully insulting a portion of their playerbase.

Does this mean guild bounties will be bugged for the foreseeable future?

This doesn’t seem like a small thing that can really wait for a larger update.

To me, it really is more about the story experience of the players and excitement levels going into this story season.

Even the devs saw this as an issue. It’s why they made such a point of telling us that the raid story wasn’t an important part of the living story arc.

The problem is, it was. It was the first introduction to the conflict, the bloodstone (in this timeline) and main enemy. It was chapter one – no matter how much they want to tell us it wasn’t.

That is bad form – poor storytelling – and a VERY BAD precedent for the future (in my opinion, of course).

Jerus.4350:

Blaeys.3102:

Jerus.4350:

Blaeys.3102:

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

Spoilers ahead

I waited. I played the new storyline completely through – and I think that is obvious that the raid was indeed the first part of this story arc – even moreso that actually expected. This is illustrated even further by the reuse of assets on the new map.

The story is very well done – as is the content itself – but it doesn’t change the fact that the kickoff for the story was given to a small subset of the population.

To add, if the raid had been designed to offer accessibility to a greater percentage, it would have essentially solved this – and it would have made the content drought much less pronounced.

You really need to reconsider this approach – and, if you absolutely refuse to make the raid more accessible, please do not tie them back to the story of the White Mantle or the next dragon. Honestly, I do not see how you can raids as part of the story telling process if they remain as they currently are.

And it would have completely failed to do what raids were designed to do, give this game an end game it could be proud of.

I’m fine with a different storyline though, some kind of re-emergence of Abaddon or some follower of his could be entertaining (plus the lore people would lose their kitten )

I’m not sure a secondary storyline would work either – especially one that the average player would love to see, like the Abaddon storyline.

If they are going to use raids as a storytelling tool, then raids needs to be more appealing – and accessible – to a larger percentage of the playerbase.

So it can’t be part of the main story, and it can’t be a different story…

I do have an issue with putting story even remotely connected to the lore or the main story line in content designed to be exclusionary.

Regardless, I think the idea that this past dungeon was not the start – and an important part of the experience – of the current living story has been debunked.

It was chapter one. It began the story of our conflict with these foes and started the bloodstone storyline.

Anet needs to make sure content like that is accessible to players regardless of playstyle, gear level, builds, etc. – which they most definitely did not do in this case – and they should be held accountable for that.

After seeing the final scenes, I don’t think anyone can debate that the raid was indeed the introduction of this storyline.

Bad form and a very bad practice, imo.

Jerus.4350:

Blaeys.3102:

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

Spoilers ahead

I waited. I played the new storyline completely through – and I think that is obvious that the raid was indeed the first part of this story arc – even moreso that actually expected. This is illustrated even further by the reuse of assets on the new map.

The story is very well done – as is the content itself – but it doesn’t change the fact that the kickoff for the story was given to a small subset of the population.

To add, if the raid had been designed to offer accessibility to a greater percentage, it would have essentially solved this – and it would have made the content drought much less pronounced.

You really need to reconsider this approach – and, if you absolutely refuse to make the raid more accessible, please do not tie them back to the story of the White Mantle or the next dragon. Honestly, I do not see how you can raids as part of the story telling process if they remain as they currently are.

And it would have completely failed to do what raids were designed to do, give this game an end game it could be proud of.

I’m fine with a different storyline though, some kind of re-emergence of Abaddon or some follower of his could be entertaining (plus the lore people would lose their kitten )

I’m not sure a secondary storyline would work either – especially one that the average player would love to see, like the Abaddon storyline.

If they are going to use raids as a storytelling tool, then raids needs to be more appealing – and accessible – to a larger percentage of the playerbase.

Guild Missions.

We have seen what the expansion brings. We have seen what Living Story brings. We have seen what the raid team is doing.

My big question is, where do things like guild missions (and, especially, guild missions) fit into game development.

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

Spoilers ahead

I waited. I played the new storyline completely through – and I think that is obvious that the raid was indeed the first part of this story arc – even moreso that actually expected. This is illustrated even further by the reuse of assets on the new map.

The story is very well done – as is the content itself – but it doesn’t change the fact that the kickoff for the story was given to a small subset of the population.

To add, if the raid had been designed to offer accessibility to a greater percentage, it would have essentially solved this – and it would have made the content drought much less pronounced.

You really need to reconsider this approach – and, if you absolutely refuse to make the raid more accessible, please do not tie them back to the story of the White Mantle or the next dragon. Honestly, I do not see how you can raids as part of the story telling process if they remain as they currently are.

draxynnic.3719:

There’s a simple answer, which has multiple precedents: implement a split between a story mode for people who just want to experience the story (and, which, incidentally, could also act as a training mode for people who do want to move on to the hard mode) with substantially reduced or no extrinsic rewards, and a hard mode for people who want the full raid experience. But ArenaNet thus far has indicated that this is off the table.

Which is why it is important to make sure they continue to hear from us on this topic on these forums, on Twitter, on reddit and anywhere else it makes sense (of course, keeping the conversation civil, focused and on message).

Upvote posts and replies on the topic – respond and make the point whenever story or raiding is discussed – and encourage others to do the same.

Anet has a good history of listening to their players – much better than most MMO developers. I know they have read and heard the community concern over this issue – and I feel confident they will remember that concern as they work on future content (hopefully with significant changes in how they deliver raids).

If it turns out that the White Mantle are a big part of the next living world, it is important that we come back to these forums and make sure they understand why the current raid system is not a good storytelling medium in GW2.

I think a lot of people are looking at this from a singular perspective. They enjoy raids as they are now and are either afraid that change will somehow reduce the challenge or they don’t want more casual players to somehow “corrupt” how people view raids.

There are a lot of different playstyles out there – and a lot of players who would like to experience raids without having to worry about the build/group makeup/etc the hardcore community enjoys.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

While I can understand worries about stretching resources (but don’t think it would be that bad if implemented cleverly), I have real issue with the idea that offering a more casual raiding experience will somehow diminish the experience currently offered.

Not wanting someone to have something because you feel it is something only you get (in a video game) is not good for the game community. I try to never use these words, but they fit this situation – get over it.

More players raiding (even at multiple levels) is good for the game. It gives devs reason to continue development and helps acclimate people who would never raid to the content – deepening the pool of potential raiders for the future.

And finally, if you cannot make your argument without terms like “lazy”, “crybaby”, “elitist”, etc, then you do not have a strong argument. You’re simply resorting to insults to try and make people feel uncomfortable about posting. To people like Assic, who avoid doing that and made cogent arguments (which I do disagree with, btw), thank you. To the others who cannot go three sentences without having to put someone down – please stop.

It really is too early to tell.

For me, it will be about unique challenges and fight mechanics. If it is just the same bosses with the same mechanics – only now in new locations – then I can see that raising some ire.

If however, they put in the work to bring in new mechanics and challenges, it is a pretty interesting concept and one I think people should give a chance before criticizing prematurely.

As always, the only sure way to know is to wait and see .

Donari.5237:

That’s brilliant, Blaeys. I really like that idea. There might be some scaling issues (guild missions are meant for 5-15 people depending on difficulty, though fewer or more can succeed, and the bandit fights don’t need very many whereas the executioners and anomalies need quite a few), but triggered guild missions is a fine way to revisit this content. It could even be considered a “retelling” — Guild leader saying “hey, new folks, let me tell you about the time when the White Mantle came out of the shadows” and the mission is reliving the story rather than having it be actually canonically happening again.

This is my thinking as well.

I really hope that, moving forward, they consider guild missions as a legitimate story telling (or, as you describe it, retelling ) tool. They are the one thing my guild most enjoys about the game, but they are getting a bit dated and stale.

BobbyStein.2315:

Kraggy.4169:

BobbyStein.2315:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

(Side note: letters from multiple sources isn’t impossible, given that you did that with the letters from the DE member of your race in the PS, and during F&F which was from DE of your race or Almorra if you were vigil )

It was impossible from a budget standpoint. Having to write 5 letters per dungeon meant we’d have to write 40 letters total instead of 8. From a logistical standpoint it would have driven up costs for localization and editing. These mails were generated very late in the development process. Multiplying them would have resulted in the wordcount ballooning by 5 times.

Maybe you’d make better use of your scarce writing resources than to have them write raid ‘lore’ which only a small minority of players will ever experience and even fewer will ever bother reading on their charge through the instance to get to the phat lewt most of them are there for.

Just saying.

“Your fallacy is to think that ‘their customers’ view the game entirely the same way and all want the same thing.”

Which is exactly why developing a PVE game mode specifically for a small subset of the population is such a bad idea – and a doubly bad idea to embed story related to the holistic narrative therein.

Accessibility. Cohesion. Entertainment. These should be the primary goals. Then deal with the varied playbase through difficulty tiering, challenging achievements/motes, etc.

For me, the single biggest issue with raids is the move away from build diversity. While there have always been meta builds, people could still play the build/gear/style they wanted without significantly hindering the group’s chances of success.

Raids changed that. They made the game more two dimensional and strongly encouraged people to play one specific style – which, in all cases, is the style that produces the highest amount of damage.

That is why I blame enrage timers for most of the issue. Unlike dungeons/fractals/etc, timers mean that damage is more important than anything – yes, even the vaunted mechanics. I think the current raid mechanics are fun, but – because of timers – there is an unnecessary barrier to entry to experience that fun.

Should their be unique rewards for overcoming the raid fights faster and inside the current timers? – yes, definitely.

But should people who enjoy their dagger/dagger vampiric necromancer or med kit engineer be – more or less – locked out of the content by unnecessary timers because they bring non-meta functionality to the fight instead of direct damage? – I vote no.

Likewise, should someone who only plays one or two hours every few weeks – and is in only exotic gear – have no way to EXPERIENCE the fights with a reasonable chance of beating it (without the exclusive reward)? – again, I think they should.

I would like to see them get back to what’s important in this game – build a holistic experience that tells a compelling story, is open to everyone and that offers unique/interesting encounters. Then go back and add challenging content (via motes, tiering, etc) in multiple areas – as it makes sense.

But, most importantly, build that holistic experience with the greater community in mind. It is how this game started and why many of us love it so much (actually why we came here in the first place).

Happy Dance !!!!

(Just please don’t tell the rest of my guild – those guys get a little nuts with the decorations)

At this point, I am willing to put this discussion on hold until we see what we actually get next week.

I think that is a fair request.

Yes, I have been diligent in communicating my point of view on the state of raiding, but I think it is worth noting that I have not started a single thread on the topic, and I am far from the only voice expressing this point of view (especially when you look at threads outside the raid and dungeon subforum, where you will – obviously – find more raiders and more in favor of what they are now).

Likewise, I have not been keeping the topic alive by myself. Voices from all sides weigh in daily. I don’t see it stopping any time soon. And there are still some good conversations taking place (like the one about story here).

Let’s continue to disagree with one another, and, likewise, let’s respect that the forums are here for exactly this kind of discussion. It is important that all of these voices be heard.

Ayrilana.1396:

Or the raid story could merely be a side story which holds little weight to the living story. No recap then needed other than a mention of anything relevant.

It’s be like if Ibli and Tizlak had a raid instance that showed the story of them from when Mordrmoth awoke to where they ran into the player. It would be a nice side story but certainly not required for the HoT story. The only thing they had in common would be the central theme but one is just a minor piece which doesn’t progress the overall story.

You bring up a good point. If the raid had not touched on the themes from the upcoming living story – but had, instead, been a side story unrelated to the main story arc of HOT but still in the same area (such as the example you cite above or just a generic bunch of mordrem kidnapping random pact members), then this particular issue would be far less of a problem. It is the introduction of the likely antagonist and conflict from the upcoming story that I have an issue with (if that is indeed what they have done, as many suspect).

I would still have strong issues with raids and accessibility, but at least the storytelling would be cleaner.

Ive been discussing the topic – a lot more than I want to actually.

As it relates to story (this thread – there are others threads more appropriate for the other discussions about raids), I think it is a good idea, as Mr Stein prompted, to wait and see what next week brings and, if the issue still exists, address it in more detail then.

I obviously disagree with the points you are trying to make about raids (strongly disagree), but in order to keep threads on topic, I would direct you to one of those other threads, as the topic here really is about how the story is delivered – which again, is probably better discussed next week.

I meant it is semantics on their part. Sometimes, when you are too close to something, it’s hard to see it. They make the statement about Living Story and raids being separate because it is from their perspective.

From the player perspective however, it is all just GW2 PVE. We expect a cohesive and accessible story, regardless of playstyle, builds, etc. We expect that because that is what we’ve had in the game since launch. Raiding is taking it in another direction, but it doesn’t have to – tiered difficulties would cleanly fix the issues and give Anet the ability to use raids as part of the story.

It is about semantics.

They aren’t part of living story because living story is developed by another team within ArenaNet -

But once you look at it from the player perspective, that proves to be false. The game world and story should be seemless, regardless of who at Anet developed them.

We’ll see for sure next week, but it really does seem that our first introduction to one of the LS3 antagonists and conflicts were definitely introduced through the raids to a small percentage of players.

TheLilith.2849:

Blaeys.3102:

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

Okay, but if the next story is about the White Mantle, then you have to agree that our introduction to them – as the antagonists and primary source of conflict – came through the raid.

Even if you choose to retell that in some way in living story, it was still introduced to the smaller group of raiders first – something that could have been avoided with a more open raid model. That is where the bad form comes from (again, if WM are a major part of the next story).

Oh no! White Mantle was introduced to large group of people who played GW1. Now they can know all lore behind WM and what is worse – if, we, GW2 players want to experience it we would need to pay for that by buying game! Shame and pay2experience-lore.

You’re confusing the terms lore and story.

What you are talking about above is lore – colorful background that isn’t part of the current story arc.

The issue is with the current story arc and how the player experiences it. If a key part of that story (and the introduction of the antagonist is a key part) is available to only a small group, then that – understandably – diminishes excitement for those who feel left out of it.

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Watching the most recent trailer – and the Wooden Potatoes analysis – really drives home the opportunity they lost with the raid.

If it had accessible to a wider group of players, the content drought would not have felt as severe as it did. They could have advanced the story (however slightly) while giving all PVE players something new to do.

Even if they “let” players into the raid instance with the next story next week, they dropped the ball in a big way with this. It was (pretty much now confirmed) the introduction to the conflict with the White Mantle – an introduction they reserved for a small percentage of players.

Again, I think it was just a misstep as they experiment with what raiding should be, but now that it’s happened, it should never happen again. Lessens learned, hopefully.

Horrible missed opportunity – and, again, good story, but bad storytelling.

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

And, as I replied in that thread, that is fine. Let’s revisit this topic after next Tuesday.

But, after seeing the trailer, it would be very strange if the next living story didn’t center – at least partially – on the conflict with the White Mantle and the discovery of the bloodstone. If that turns out to be true, then the story was most definitely introduced in the raid (which, regardless of the amount of content, is a big deal), which is what I have a problem with. Even if they let people single player through all of the current raid fights/encounters, it doesn’t change the fact that the story arc was made available to a very limited percentage of the population months prior.

But, again, let’s wait and see.

BobbyStein.2315:

Blaeys.3102:

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

Hold that judgment until you play the episode.

Okay, but if the next story is about the White Mantle, then you have to agree that our introduction to them – as the antagonists and primary source of conflict – came through the raid.

Even if you choose to retell that in some way in living story, it was still introduced to the smaller group of raiders first – something that could have been avoided with a more open raid model. That is where the bad form comes from (again, if WM are a major part of the next story).

I think the most recent trailer for S3 dispels any notion that raids were not a significant part of the next story arc (the introduction, in fact).

That is, imo, bad form and bad storytelling – but only because of the raid accessibility issue.

As much as some don’t want it, raids need tiered difficulties, especially if they are to be used to advance the story (in even the slightest way).

Watching the most recent trailer – and the Wooden Potatoes analysis – really drives home the opportunity they lost with the raid.

If it had accessible to a wider group of players, the content drought would not have felt as severe as it did. They could have advanced the story (however slightly) while giving all PVE players something new to do.

Even if they “let” players into the raid instance with the next story next week, they dropped the ball in a big way with this. It was (pretty much now confirmed) the introduction to the conflict with the White Mantle – an introduction they reserved for a small percentage of players.

Again, I think it was just a misstep as they experiment with what raiding should be, but now that it’s happened, it should never happen again. Lessens learned, hopefully.

Horrible missed opportunity – and, again, good story, but bad storytelling.

UnbentMars.9126:

Changer the Elder.2948:

UnbentMars.9126:

Dream Shake.8741:

So raiders will always be the first to get the breaking news while the rest will have to read the wiki and watch youtube? How fun.

Yeah, how dare people be rewarded for doing challenging content

Uh… except they already are? Or do you think the gold and ascended drops and exclusive skins and legendary armor are just some trash nobody wanted…

Story isn’t a reward, it’s the point of many people playing the game. Raids are part of the game that ANet said is “only for the select few” and they indeed are. That select few tends to be rather far from people playing games for their stories.

The raid is not a story, it’s teasers of what is going to be the story. A preview can easily be considered a reward.

If you want it, do what it takes to get it instead of asking stuff be reduced to where you don’t have to succeed in the challenges that many people have already shown to be possible. A group 4-manned VG earlier this week, so I can’t exactly say that it has to be for the “select few”, especially when considering that wing 3 (which contains the vast majority of these previews) is the easiest yet and more people can clear it without as much trouble.

If the developers actually intended for the story prelude – or chapter one – to be a “reward” for raiders, then this game has drifted a long way from where it started and the developers have forgotten the players/customers that made the game such a success for 3+ years.

I don’t believe that for a second. I think they simply made some bad decisions as they experimented with raids and storylines. Now it’s time to learn from those mistakes, adapt their approach to raiding and not make them again.

Diovid.9506:

Astralporing.1957:

Diovid.9506:

Blaeys.3102:

I’m not saying that story cannot be told through 10 player content – I’m saying that, if it is, that content has to be designed in a way that is open and accessible to players regardless of their playstyle, builds, gear, etc – and it most definitely was not in this case.

Funny how no one ever said the same about dungeons.

Maybe it was because they, unlike raids, were accessible.

As the outcry over Arah story mode showed, many people did not think so. And yet they only complained about that one dungeon, not about dungeons in general.

People complained about Arah because it was a jarring transition between the soloable story steps directly into the dungeon – which appeared on the screen to be the next soloable story step (thus the change to make that instance soloable now).

The big difference between dungeons and raids is that dungeons did not require people to change the way they play, the way the gear their character or their builds to better ensure success. This is mainly because of the lack of artificial difficulty mechanics like enrage timers and because it is easier to get 5 people than it is to get 10 (but only because of those points).

While there were some difficult points in dungeons, they were surmountable by the average and even less skilled playerbases. As long as artificial barriers that require (or strongly encourage) changing how you play remain in raids, there will always be an accessibility issue.

Placing the (probable) introduction of the LS3 antagonist and primary story conflict in content of that type does mean that you leave a lot of players out of an important (yes important) part of the narrative (and yes, if they are playing a video game, they are right in expecting to actually experience – not just read about – that narrative).

Anet fumbled the ball on this one – which can probably be explained away as experimentation with the new storytelling tools they have – but there will be no excuse for it in the future.

Ideally, raids need to be accessible – in one form or another – to larger groups of players – making this a non-issue.

Ayrilana.1396:

Changer the Elder.2948:

Ayrilana.1396:

They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?

Why bother playing the game at all? Just have a friend who’ll tell you about it instead. He or she will tell you all you need to know to understand the story. Or why bother watching a movie or reading a book? Just google the summary.

I hope you see the difference.

Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.

Except this wasn’t some event from way in the past.

This was the (probable) introduction of the protagonist and major story conflict. Even if that occurs across the span of a few seconds or minutes, it is a major piece of the story – and not one that any good author would leave to 3rd party exposition or, even worse, a guided tour from the “real” heroes.

When you consider the goal of interactive storytelling and Anet’s emphasis on “This is my story,” then leaving players out of that introduction is a bigger deal – one that all players deserve – and should want – to be a part of.

I’m not saying that story cannot be told through 10 player content – I’m saying that, if it is, that content has to be designed in a way that is open and accessible to players regardless of their playstyle, builds, gear, etc – and it most definitely was not in this case.

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.

As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.

But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.

They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.

That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).

It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.

The moment has passed.

We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.

Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.

Also:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598

The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.

You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.

It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.

They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?

A big part of this game is being the hero of the story – not reading about other players who got to be the hero of our story.

That isn’t hard to understand.

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.

As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.

But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.

They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.

That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).

It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.

The moment has passed.

We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.

Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.

Also:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598

The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.

You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.

It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.

As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.

But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.

They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.

That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).

It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.

The moment has passed.

We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.

It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.

As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.

But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.

Absurdo.8309:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

Blaeys.3102:

Ayrilana.1396:

I don’t expect you to know this as you probably haven’t been a part of project work before.

Keep the personal insults out of the conversation. They only serve to derail topics and shutdown threads.

I raid with organized groups every week – I have raided end game hardcore progression – even have some world firsts. Outside the game, I have owned my own business for almost 10 years and am an extremely successful professional in my field who is called upon to build goal oriented teams for my clients.

I only post this to refute the silly personal attack. The point is, keep to the topic at hand and leave the personal stuff out of it.

It doesn’t matter when the wings were developed – and the size of the map is something you see for yourself ingame. Again, consider the law of conservation of energy. All effort has to come from a finite pool – and, in the case of things like voice acting, map design, writing, etc, these are one to one correlations with non raid content (voice acting a raid boss’s line is identical to voice acting an open world character’s).

It wasn’t a personal insult. It was an assumption based on most people not having experience in project work. There’s really nothing wrong in that. It’s very much a part of the topic as the complaint was that they were misrepresenting the size of their team. I disputed it.

You cannot say that the raid map is the same as any of the other HoT maps or even the core maps.

I didn’t say it was exactly the same.

I said it was roughly the same size. It was in reference to the art and environmental resources used to develop the map.

I believe their may be some tasks associated with raids that are easier to do than others. But, when you add in all of the other elements that do have one to one correlations with other content (voice work, map development, fight balancing, writing lore – which they have bragged about, etc), the idea that SIGNIFICANTLY (key word) less effort was required seems a bit silly.

There is more that is put into open world maps than instanced maps. They are not equivalent or even close for that matter. It’s not really the same size as there’s not much walkable space. If there was a map that was the size of all of Heart of Maguuma, but only consisted of a small island the size of claw island, would you consider that map to be larger than the others? There’s also very little vertical space as well.

Also, what makes you think that the raid team doesn’t develop the maps themselves? I’m pretty sure that they develop all of the raid bosses too including the balancing. That’s the vast majority of what you see. The lore is fairly small in raids compared to the living story and chances are a lot of it will be used for LS3 in some way. Voice work is contracted out so I doubt it has any impact on any other areas of the game.

I stand by what I’ve listed above, but I also respect that you feel differently.

Personally, I think they overstated how easy raids are to develop in an effort to downplay community emotions regarding the content drought, and people have latched onto that as an argument for something else entirely.

I don’t mind that they use resources to develop raids – even if it is greater than they have led people to believe (which I feel is the case). I just believe that, to justify the use of any resources that would otherwise be used elsewhere, raids need to have greater appeal than they currently do.

A bit of a harsh reply, but,

If you claim that resources are over-allocated to raids,

And then encounter evidence that the opposite is true,

Then the logical position is to recant or reform your argument.

Not double-down on a position when the evidence is against you.

Because I don’t see the counterargument being as strong as people claim.

The raids, as they stand, have a lot of character and extemporaneous design – the river of souls, the Twisted Castle, the room of statues, the little cemetery before Gorseval, etc. Compare that to just about any Fractal – or even a map like Drytop or Southsun, and they seem pretty comparable. Voice acting is probably on par with any fractal (there is even PC voice responses). Fight designs rival anything in Southsun or any story instance. There are collection events and ambient mobs scattered throughout.

I just don’t see them as somehow less than just about any comparable location in the game (instanced or open world) – with some exceptions.

Anet’s claim that they had to put less effort into them than that other content really does feel like a meagre attempt to quell complaints during the recent content drought. Once you start actually looking at what went into them (especially from an ancillary resource perspective), this seems even more likely.

Absurdo.8309:

Blaeys.3102:

Razor.9872:

Blaeys.3102:

Absurdo.8309:

I think the logical conclusion from “a 4 person squad beats VG” is VG isn’t as difficult as we thought it was.

Other conclusions seem needlessly circuitous.

This is a faulty syllogism (for the reasons I list above, where are anything but circuitous), and I think most people who have played any serious raid-based game see that pretty clearly.

Looked pretty circuitous to me.

I can see why it is easy for people to want to make that connection, but anyone who has raided for any length of time has seen examples like the 4 player kills many times over and realizes it doesn’t speak to the difficulty of the content as it is experienced by the greater community, but rather to the dedication and skill of the individual group involved.

Ive brought this up multiple times in this thread because it is important to the core issue – difficulty, hardcore vs casual, accessibility – none of these are finite concepts or terms. They are defined by individual perspective.

This reads like: I know the evidence is against me, but trust my point of view.

If I see a group defeat a boss with 40% of the intended party size, that speaks to the difficulty of the encounter.

And, anecdotally, vg is not a bad pug encounter at all.

You and I both know what it takes to do something like this – and it has nothing to do with the accessibility of raids to the general public.

You analyze the individual encounter. You learn every tiny thing about it by doing it over and over. You then tailor your strategy, build, playstyle, stats, group synergies, etc in such a way as to hard counter the mechanics (such as using the Mesmer abilities to distort through the green circle damage). Then you try and try (often for weeks) to bring all of that together picture perfect.

It is an impressive feat – it deserves recognition – but it isn’t the way 99.99999% of the population raids. And, it most definitely doesn’t prove accessibility for anyone other than that group that spends the hours (or weeks or months) to do EXACTLY what I outlined above.

Again, I was in one of these guilds in WoW. I saw firsthand what they do (and again, it is impressive).

But using it to say that raids are accessible to wider groups of people or to argue against tiered difficulties is just an inaccurate comparison -

and I think most of the people trying to make that argument know that. It just seems like a good way to make their point when it really isn’t.

There are logical arguments against the implementation of tiered difficulties, such as potential strain on Anet resources, that are worth debating and discussing. However, using the 4- player or super speed clears really aren’t among them. They are based around a niche playstyle where some really smart players tailor everything around playing a single strategy perfectly.