Guild Wars 2

Merry Christmas from CH

ArenaNet needs to make some minor fixes to address this.

First, players shouldnt be able to circumvent the AFK kick mechanic through pets or other ingame mechanics. A player should have to actively do something in game (input via their keyboard) to turn the timer off. Ideally, continual action should have to persist for X number of seconds to count.

Second (and much simpler), NPCs in Silverwastes shouldnt be programmed to rez players any more.

I realize there is more they could do longer term – or more sophisticated solutions – but these are the ones they need to focus on first.

This kind of leeching is among the worst kind of behavior in this game – PERIOD. It destroys the fun of a zone for large groups of players and forces the developers to have to create workarounds or design fights with the question “can the players exploit this?” rather than “can the players have fun doing this?” Anything we can do to discourage it is welcome.

A few things people forget:

There is no grand council of players/devs/etc sitting behind the scenes determining which build is better than the next.

The word “meta” doesn’t mean what you think it means. As it is used on the forums, it’s a contrived concept that has no basis in factual research or even in establish English.

At the most basic level, the primary goal in GW2 combat is survival – period. Without artificial enrage timers, if you don’t die, you will defeat the boss. A secondary goal, created by a subset of players, revolves around speed kills (but those are player-defined goals, not game-defined goals). In PvP and WvW, secondary goals revolve around more even competitive goals that have nothing to do with speed.

People enforcing or preaching about the “meta” need to just get over it. It is a fabricated term that has nothing to do with how the game is actually played unless the individual player (you) agrees that it does.

SkyFallsInThunder.8257:

Isn’t pretty much everything they done with the game since its release against the Manifesto?

According to these forums, they can’t change the shape of the “play” button without violating the Manifesto in some way.

Regarding the JP – seems like a legit concern. Maybe next year, they could equalize the character sizes by turning us all into princess dolls or skritt (or some other holiday themed model) when we start the JP (and it would look cool too ).

Just look at it this way -

The login rewards are what actually replaced the old dailies. The new daily system is a new feature designed to reward people for getting out and trying new/different things in the game.

Yea. With all the negativity on the forums, its easy to forget that GW2, at its core, is an amazing game. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here after two years.

And, it’s obvious that there have been a LOT of really late nights put in by their team to get us those additional features, both before launch and since.

I may be (hope I am) wrong about this, but I think the biggest issue with this game’s development right now is related to the continual starts and stops dictated by what upper management see as industry trends or player demands (but are more often just noise floating in the wind).

And, I blame these forums more than anything. it’s obvious that alot of the design goals from day one have been partially or completely scrapped because of perceived player input.

Mini games, dungeons, progressive/continually updated dynamic events, huge world events, the original living story model, even underwater combat – these all seem to have fallen victim to the knife at some point to make room for new zones, permanent story features, etc. And, my guess is, the people actually designing the game have grown a little jaded and war weary from it.

In my opinion, this game would be considerably better if these forums didn’t exist – and ArenaNet devs were able to stick to their guns and the original vision of the game, fleshing out the game they originally wanted to build instead of changing lanes or taking completely different roads every time someone sneezes on the forums.

There is something to be said for having a vision and sticking to it.

TL;DR – as weird as it sounds, they should stop listening to players so much and stick to their vision of what a fun/good game would be.

I still want the ability to enter any minigame activity with a party – preferably through a custom interface similar to the one in pvp. I dont care if the activities give rewards or not – I just want to have fun with my guild and friends in a nice game of kegbrawl or sanctum sprint race (or, yes, Toypocalypse).

I realize (now, after seeing the other post) that there are technical issues holding this back, but it is something that would be a fun addition to the game (and fun is all the game should be about).

Personally, I really like the change – especially the way the rewards are done.

Only thing I would recommend – they should stay away from adding anything that requires people to be on at a specific time of the day – specifically, dailies associated with world bosses like the Jungle Worm.

Other than that, this seems like a really positive step.

Its funny how someone comes in and says, “this was fun. more of this please.” and its followed by the same half dozen posters as always saying “NO. you did not have fun – and here is why.”

Ive done Tequatl a bunch of times and I agree – it is a fun experience. We definitely need more like it in the game (Shatterer/Jormag need to be brought to the same level, imo).

Fights like this are something that the ArenaNet does really well – and that fit well in the game.

The most interesting thing about Tequatl is how the community has adapted to the fight. The same could be said of Drytop, Silverwastes and even Triple Trouble to a degree (as well as some older content like the Marionette, Boss Blitz and LA Assault). I love seeing the community as a whole get better and work together better on this kind of content (and that is exactly what has happened, regardless of what the naysayers yell about on the forums).

This kind of content is where GW2 really shines and where I hope Anet focuses most of their attention in the future. It is what will build a more alive world with lots of potential content for large groups.

Let’s not make this thread another zerker vs (insert armor here) discussion. People kill both variations of these mobs everyday in a variety of gear.

Specific to the Teragriffs, they are not hard to deal with. You just have to pay attention to the mechanics and respond appropriately.

For the melee ones, any cripple or root basically shuts them down (acts as a knockdown). Once you realize this, they are pretty fun to fight.

For the ranged ones, its simple – use a combination of dodges, jumps, blocks, immunities, CCs (which they are susceptible to) and burn them down. If youre having issues, look for advantageous terrain (rocks, walls, etc) and get above them. Blindly face tanking more than two of them will probably get you killed (as it should in most fights).

If you are struggling, then, yes, I’m sorry, but you probably should invest in some survival stats until you are at the point where you dont need them to get through the fight.

How about everyone stop worrying about how everyone else is playing the game and just start enjoying it.

Choose a playstyle you enjoy and make that your “meta” (a word that really has no meaning outside of very small online circles, btw).

If you run into people who don’t like how you choose to play, then simply don’t play with them anymore. Problem solved.

I think people would have alot more fun if they stopped taking the game quite so seriously.

Completely agree.

I still want a custom activity feature that mirrors the custom spvp interface – so we can set up guild or large group keg brawls and sanctum sprints. Keep the regular minigames the way they are now for the rewards – just give us the customizable feature with rewards turned off so we can just have dumb fun in groups.

Realistically, I like the direction the game is taking for one reason.

What excites me the most is the prospect of the game growing through new zones similar to Drytop and Silverwastes.

Combined with the lfg tool and guild activity nights, I love the thought of 6/12/24/500- zones that are, in essence, giant dynamic events (with variations between each similar to how drytop and silverwastes differ now).

The idea of being able to pick and choose between these for guild nights or via LFG really appeals to me. It is definitely the right direction for large group play in GW2.

So, basically, Im saying “more of what youve been doing lately” to ArenaNet.

Here is the reality on dps meters.

You can come up with a million and one theoretical reasons why they would be a good thing, but in practice (with years of anecdotal evidence), they have proven to be toxic and create hateful gameplay time and time again.

I wouldnt mind seeing test dummies or mock encounters in my home instance where I could – personally – practice killing faster and faster in a controlled environment, but a HUGE NO to dps meters. Regardless of any theoretical argument, history proves they would be bad for the game.

And, like so many have said, its already very easy to measure personal skill in the game. If speed kills are your thing, just time how fast you kill the same target and shoot for a faster kill the next time. Voila – there is your personal dps meter.

Lishtenbird.2814:

maddoctor.2738:

How exactly are you losing APs with the new system? 3 slightly more complex dailies over the FORCED WvW/PvP ones for the same amount of AP (10)????

Here’s my concern as a non-AP hunter who still wants natural AP progression for playing the game.

• Currently, I can get about 5-6 dailies just by playing the game naturally – which is what an average playing player would get, I assume. That would mean around 55 AP in 10 days.
• With the new system, while playing the game naturally I will hit the 3 dailies around 1 or 2 times in 10 days – which is 10-20 AP in 10 days.

Yes, I understand that it’s easier to get more AP.

But the problem is that to get any amount of AP at all, I have to go out of my way. It’s all or nothing, and my daily guild Teq, guild Fractals and dungeons and some new LS map will most of the time mean 0 AP.

It wont be nothing because you will be getting something for just logging on.

It’s understandable that anything above that should require (just a TEENY bit) more thought and effort.

This seems like a very positive change that will add variety and be a little fun. For the pure loot players, it should, as maddoctor says above, make it easier/faster to get the full 10 AP a day.

It’s a little early for the complaint brigade to hit the forums.

I think replayable personal story is probably on its way at some point – based on how the chapters are arranged in the story journal now.

I dont think they would (or even should) let us make new choices (like a different order), but it would be cool to see achievements and hard modes added.

This seems like a good change. Color me interested and a little curious about how this will affect the game.

Only think I disagreed with in the blog post was when they called The Shatterer more challenging than defeating 3 players in WvW. That world boss encounter (and most of the others, for that matter) desperately needs a rework.

Interesting fact: there were exactly 12 living story updates in 2014, starting with Origin of Madness on Jan 13 and ending with Seeds of Truth on December 2.

I think a monthly cadence would be less jarring to players and more fluid for the storyline.

By the end of the year, there will have been 17 updates in 2014. This includes the 12 living story and an additional 5 updates in 2014 that aren’t related to the LS – 2 feature packs, The Festival of the Four Winds, Blood and Madness and Wintersday.

IMO, they need to do something like the following:

12 Living Story Updates: Once a month
4 Feature Packs: Once a quarter
4 Holiday/Special Events: Wintersday, Blood and Madness, April Fools (SAB potentially), and one other based on the living story (Dragon Bash after we defeat an Elder dragon, for example).

That would come to 20 updates a year and would hopefully allow them to spend more time delivering a wider range of content on a more consistent basis (including new guild missions, dungeons, world events, traits, skill points, etc).

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Ayrilana.1396:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Ayrilana.1396:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Ayrilana.1396:

Jedge.3619:

Ayrilana.1396:

Jedge.3619:

mtpelion.4562:

Arnath.2319:

I do not understand why ArenaNet are deliberately trying to kill this game!
Almost ZERO content has been added since release, and any content that is added is either finished within an hour or removed.

I do not understand why you feel the need to deliberately post false statements!

If he’s going to argue that there’s no content, the least you could do is back up your response. Cause’ right now you’re going to lose this battle my friend.

Technically it’s up to the one stating there’s a lack of content to post their evidence as they’re the one who made the argument first.

My friend, you are not diving deep enough into this argument. Look forward not back.

Yeah… Still doesn’t change the fact that it’s not on him to provide the evidence. Arnath stated that almost zero content was added without provide any proof and mtpelion challenged it.

If you want, I can state that the state the Earth is flat, have you challenge this, and then say that you must prove me wrong.

You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, how would you do that exactly? It is up to you to prove that there has been a substantial amount of content added.

Like this:

In the first 2 years of WoW Blizzard released:

8 new dungeons
5 new raids
10 new zones
1 new race
500+ quests
6 PvP maps
2 PvP modes
10 new levels
20+ new skills
50+ new talents
LFg system
Cross server system (first of its kind ever)
4 Festivals

WoW is considered the golden standard of MMO’s, your job would be to show that GW2 does indeed release a similar amount of content. (Hint: it doesn’t).

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Ahh yes the old use a logical fallacy to end the argument when you lose….

Here I’ll start for you:

Number of zones added: 3*
New zones are 1/3 the size or smaller than original game zones
Number of new races: 0
Number of new classes: 0
Number of new legendary’s: 0
Number of new dungeons: 1
1 dungeon also removed
Number of new raids: 0
Number of new quests(DE’s): ~50
LFG Added
Fractals Added
New PvP modes: 1
Removed from rotation
New PvP maps: 3
One removed, one removed from rotation
Number of LS episodes: 29*
**22 removed

Note: This was over 2.5 years as opposed to WoW’s Two years

Would you say that GW2 released a reasonable amount of content in those 2 years as compared to WoW?

Sorry but those items are not the definitive list of what counts as content. Those of us playing since release have experienced a wealth of content rather than the argued “almost zero”.

Umm that is literally ALL the content added to this game since launch… D

Just off the top of my head, you missed:

Guild Missions
New Jumping Puzzles
New Minigames
New Minidungeons
New Worldbosses
Edge of the Mists
Megaserver

Im not saying the game has been as expansive or aggressive in releases as a game like WoW (in its first 2 years), but I think you are deliberately putting on blinders because the content weve received isnt necessarily the content you wanted.

There is a valid topic worthy of discussion here regarding the pace of content delivery vs player expectations (I was a little disappointed in the news about the next LS step myself), but the hyperbole and exaggerations from some are making it harder – not easier – to actually have that conversation.

To highlight one of our weekly guild activities:

Guild Deathmatch PvP
Every other Tuesday (alternating with living story/small group Tuesday), we do an in guild PvP deathmatch tournament in our custom arena. Three player teams are assigned randomly and are shuffled throughout the night and pitted against one another. The mood is kept light, with a lot of jokes and “rivalries.”

Just before and after the tournament, we usually conduct two other events in our custom arena -

1. Thunderdome, during which any member can challenge any other member to a one on one single elimination match (“Two men enter, one man leaves”).

2. Customized mini game – which can, currently, be one of three different activities: Zombie Hunt, VIP match or AsuraBall.

This is just one way the guild has fun together. Other guild activities include organized guild missions every Monday (we havent missed a week since Missions were first added to the game) and WvW on Wednesday and Friday nights.

No guild activities are mandatory as part of membership. They are there for members to enjoy should they happen to be interested.

If this sounds like something you would enjoy being a part of, contact me or GubboSupreme.6498 in game.

The only place the “zerker beta” exists is in dungeon pug groups. Find a group of friends or a good guild open to trying new things and you’ll find the game a lot more fun (and, if you advertise smartly for your own pugs, you can even do so there).

Also, just a point of clarification – zerker is a gearing decision and is only one small piece of your build. Your more important build decisions (traits and skills) can still vary significantly and be very effective. In fact, many best in class builds do not max out the power and precision lines – opting to go after strong traits in other lines instead.

A more realistic argument would be to debate the efficacy of stats other than power, precision and ferocity given the heavy focus on damage and “kill the fastest” in the game’s design.

Awesome addition to the zone and the game. It felt epic but not overly technical for those just wishing to complete it – with greater challenges for those going after all those golden coins.

Just as importantly, it (and the Pac Man maze) dont really detract from Silverwastes as a zone or water down the breach preparations and events.

I really love the direction this game is taking. I like thinking of Dry Top and Silverwastes as huge PVE dynamic events/activities – with minigames and jumping puzzles dispersed throughout.

I have this vision in my head of what the game may look like in 2-3 years if they keep this up – with a dozen or so zones – each with objectives and activities a little different than the last – that my guild/friends can pick and choose from for large group activities.

Keep up the amazing work.

I think the OPs recommendations are solid and would not unbalance the game in any way.

I agree that the biggest issue with changing the way condition damage works isnt the cap. IMO, its that the current game is balanced around the stack limits. Imagine what would happen to Lupicus or Tequatl with 100 bleed stacks. It would pretty much invalidate the fight.

Every boss – and other opponent- in in the game would have to be looked at and adjusted if the cap were deleted. It would make the gear power creep issue look like a wet noodle sitting next to an ICBM.

While the OPs recommendation would work, I have an alternate idea – albeit one that would probably require more back end work from the devs.

First, there has to be a condition cap. There really is no way around it. It is a technical limitation that, if compromised, would probably negatively impact most players.

The change I would make would be to change how conditions stack. First, every condition should stack the same – in duration versus intensity. To compensate, they would need to adjust the base damage of some conditions based on this premise.

I would then make every player’s conditions unique. In other words, if 25 players apply bleeds, then the boss would have exactly 25 stacks of bleeds – with each stack being unique to the player that applied it. If only 10 players are applying bleeds, then there would never be more than 10 bleed stacks. Those bleeds would then increase in duration based on the bleeds applied by the individual player. The same would be true of burning, poison, etc (pretty much every damaging condition).

Then they would need to balance every condition weapon, sigil and trait around this premise. Make the autoattack apply a basic condition (probably bleeds in most cases, but they could add flavor by giving thieves bleeds, necros poisons, mesmers confusion, engis burning etc) and abilities with cooldowns stronger conditions.

The primary place this would make a difference would be in dungeons. It would completely eliminate the condition cap in 5-player situations (and any other content with fewer than 25 players).

The only downside would be in open world and WvW content where you have more than 25 players (primarily in open world – condition cleanses usually kick in before 25 stacks in WvW). That is really the only situation where hybrid’s idea of prioritizing the highest damage conditions would be needed.

Again, this would require rebalancing most condition applying weapons, traits and sigils, but it would deal with the big issue. Once you do away with stacking, it is simple to bring condition damage up to par with direct damage (or, more realistically, near to – conditions should be less powerful than direct damage since you they allow you to move out of line of site and still be doing damage).

Gaile Gray.6029:

• No, the game is not lacking direction. Nor is it lacking vision or goals, plans, ideas, concepts, or any of the other properties that guide our future. The quiet now is not an indicator of anything other than the fact that, at this time, the company is not talking about the future but is, instead, working on it.

Gaile,

Personally, I have little issue with how Anet has chosen to develop and communicate about the game, with two significant exception.

Both of these are a direct result of this blog post from Colin Johanson on July 18, 2013:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/looking-ahead-guild-wars-2-in-2013/

In that post, Colin made very definitive statements about future activities. While most of those things did make it into the game, there are two that are still just hanging out there.

I do not think it is unfair of the community to ask for an update on these items. At least let us know if they are still part of the plan.

Those two items are:

1. Progression Advancement

• Colin’s Quote: “We’ll begin regularly adding new skills and traits to the game for each profession to expand your characters and builds!”

This progression never came into being. Is it still on the table?

2. Legendary Gear and Precursors

• Colin’s Quote: “you’ll also see new legendary weapons and new types of legendary gear in 2013. Building your precursor will require a large amount of the new crafting material rewards listed above, 500 in crafting, and likely a combination of other items earned for completing more specific content in the game.”

Again, is this still a thing?

I trust ArenaNet to continue making an amazing game and care less than most about futuristic speculations. However, at the same time, the two items above were mentioned in definitive terms as part of the plan in 2013.

Were almost a year and a half out from that post. If ArenaNet has abandoned these ideas – or if they had to reconsider or delay them for any reason, that is understandable. The issue comes with making the definitive statements and then not communicating about them after all of this time.

It isnt 2013 anymore, so we can assume the original plans fell through. All we want to know is if the plans were just delayed or were they completely scrapped.

It wasnt as much about answering questions, but more about advancing one part of the story – our hunt for the egg. We did learn a few significant points, specifically information about the Master of Peace/his role, that the egg holds some kind of power for whichever faction has it, and that Caithe was planning to/did betray us.

While these may seem minor (and some are arguing, obvious, even though that is easy to do post patch), they do set us up for what’s next.

Right now, we have three primary conflicts/situations that eventually have to be resolved:

• The assault against Mordremoth
• The ownership/fate of Glint’s egg
• The Rytlock situation

This week’s patch didnt do much to advance the assault or the Rytlock story, but it did advance the story of Glint’s egg, which is obviously much more important than anything else going on right now.

The only story I really expect to be resolved by the end of this season is Mordremoth, with a major aerial/land assault occurring sometime in December. I, however, suspect that the egg and Rytlock stories will advance in such a way as to make Mordremoth’s defeat feel less important in the grand scheme of the story (probably something to do with the Eternal Alchemy, human gods and the Mursaat).

I agree that we do not need more PVE bosses in WvW, but Ive always thought it would be interesting if they mixed up the tower and keep lords a little. Why do they all have to be human NPCs with the exact same fight mechanics? It’s an area where they could add a little diversity and flavor without drawing away from the true appeal of WvW (beating on enemy players).

They could even add in new tower/keep lords as part of upgrading the objective. A T1 Tower has the standard keep lord, but a T3 has a powerful elementalist or empowered boss.

IllegalChocolate.6938:

Are you serious?

Bunker Guard which is for the most part a PURE tank with support requires a great deal of active play to play good with, you’re not gonna stand there and get double backstabbed by two sleight of hand thieves while a power longbow ranger pelts you from the ridge.

Tanky != no active play, TERA Online says otherwise, Dark Souls says otherwise, Global Agenda (RIP) says otherwise, Spvp says otherwise, WvW says otherwise.

The only reason as to why its this way in GW2 PvE is due to the fact that mobs are completely one dimensional. They don’t harass you forward into traps, they don’t reactively block, dodge, almost all attacks are easily telegraphed and avoidable, all of which are avoidable with the same methods using the same rhythms with no designs to try and break you out of auto pilot dodging. The same methods of engagement albeit one or two adjustments can be used to tackle a huge chunk of content without even understanding why it does what it does. You can quite literally enact one strategy and the AI will do almost nothing to counter play you or even live long enough for anything to register.

And what exactly about PvE in this game that is at all interesting? Mobs are predictable and are easy to dissect and break down everything will always do the same thing, you always expect the same outcomes the same behavior the same results, what is so interesting about monotone again?

Lupi dies to cloak and dagger backstab spam, you can literally dance circles around him while he struggle to land hits on anything until he tries to put you into bubbles. That isn’t interesting, it’s like watching a giant baby struggle in his crib.

You can spin Mai Trin in circles while first mate desperately tries to blow you up with a slow kitten cannon, that is interesting?

I honestly don’t see it, is it the jumping puzzles? well not a lot of other mmos have diverse platforming sequences anyways. I will admit that the environments are very beautiful.

This game has fantastic core mechanics, it has fantastic combat and great production values. We need PvE content that challenges us on all fronts, our ability to maneuver, to think critically, and to make core choices in our setups and forces us to really appreciate all the designs and choices we have available. Nothing in PvE does that innately.

I agree with a lot of this. I like the game’s combat as it is now, but if they could ever move PVE combat to feel more like PVP (which is a HUGE if), then it would add more diversity to game play and be a step forward from the (albeit very good) gameplay we have now.

But what youre talking about is reactive AI at a level that probably isnt possible with today’s technology.

Barring that, what we have is pretty good – with fights getting more and more interesting each time they bring in something new (Aetherpath, Triple Threat, recent living story mechanics, interesting bosses in Dry Top and Silverwastes, etc). They are obviously adapting and getting better at encouraging role diversity.

I think the game is heading in a nice direction and that non zerker builds are more viable than they were 12 months ago.

What if the “Caithe’s Reconnaissance Squad” instance in the last update had been tuned for five players instead of one – with the addition of a single challenging boss (Mordrem Plant probably) at the end?

Would that have upset anyone?

I ask because I see an opportunity here that I think ANet should consider taking advantage of. This past release included 3 combat instances (and one story focused instance), which seems to be the average.

I think they should try to make one of every three combat instances geared toward dungeon runners (or even one of every six) – giving us short 5-player instances alongside the single player ones.

As long as the main storyline is communicated well in the single player instances, I think this would work – and tremendously deepen the Living Story experience. They could use the 5 player content for less critical story steps (or side stories).

I bring up Reconnaissance Squad because that particular story step really wasnt critical to the narrative. It felt extraneous anyway. So, why not use those resources to deepen the 5-player experience as well as the single player one?

This could easily become an alternative to dungeons – and provide easily converted content for future fractals.

We’ve had 5 Living Story releases so far this season. If there had been one short 5-player instance introduced with each one, that would have been five engaging bosses and trash paths. That’s more than most dungeons in the game have now .

Just a thought.

Pretty much every earnings report weve seen from NCSoft since day one has mentioned the word “expansion” in relation to GW2.

I really dont think they mean it in the sense many believe – that is, a traditional expansion like those we see in other games. I wouldn’t read too much into one line from the earnings report.

Anet would have to make some really hard decisions if they ever decided to develop an official expansion. They’ve touted their aggressive and free update business model to a point where an expansion doesnt really make sense unless theyve changed their entire approach to the game.

The big question is, where would they draw the line between what could be in an expansion and what could be trickled out in bi-weekly updates. I still have faith they can make the free update model work – in ways that both bring in new customers and end up giving us a full expansion worth of content in more timely fashions.

In fairness, there really is nothing to tune down even if they wanted to.

With the exception of the first boss, none of the fights in this instance are reliant on heath pools or character weapon damage. They are reliant on pure mechanics, such as the fragile buff and light field attunements. For something like these instances, which are designed to be done only a few times, this is good design in that it requires some (but not too much) creative thought and planning.

You could argue that the fights could be more forgiving (fewer one shots), but I would counter that with the fact that the fights are impossible to fail – if you die, you retry from a point right next to the fight.

Stop looking at them as traditional fights like you would in dungeons – and more like little puzzles to solve – and I think you will enjoy them more.

And, if ANET is listening – do alot more stuff like this please. This instance was awesome.

I suspect that will change with the next update. Remember that Dry Top became progressively more complex with each release. I suspect the same will happen in Silverwastes.

Axyl.9408:

Also, if you fail, how do you do it again without restarting the story from outside of the library?

To this question, there are challenge motes just before each boss that allow you to reset the fight and try again without doing the entire instance over (I missed them too until someone on the forums pointed them out to me ).

Considering the past few CDIs have all focused on guild related topics, I think we will see a feature pack focused heavily on guild content, much as the last one was focused on the NPE. I could be wrong about that, but I hope Im not. Guild missions, particularly, haven’t been touched in more than a year and a half now.

What I would like to see (and I think we will see some of this, but not all):

• New traits and skills
• New guild missions and guild mission types
• Guild Halls
• Improvements to the guild and LFG interfaces (possibly adding in tools to help large groups stay together)
• Improvements to the squad system to support large group organization
• Build Templates/OOC switching system
• Further improvements to the megaserver, specifically how groups are kept together
• New PvP modes and maps
• GvG
• New Fractal
• WvW scoring or matchmaking changes

A few that I would LOVE to see, but are much less likely:

• A mini game custom arena style system (allowing friends to play minigames together in a private map, just like the spvp custom arena)
• Group mode difficulties added to living story instances
• Some kind of trigger/group instancing system to bring large events from LS Season One back (marionette, Breachmaker, Tower of Nightmares, Ancient Karka)
• New Dungeon Path(s)
• Complete revamp of WvW using the server alliance system advocated in the videos from TeamBattleAxe last year
• Improvements to all world bosses, especially Shatterer and Claw of Jormag – in line with where Tequatl is now (with all others improved to the level Claw is now)
• New Profession

guardian.6489:

Since we’re digging this topic up again.

One of my arguments for scaling was that you don’t have to look at flexible Raid sizes as a “How do we make every party size the same difficulty?” and can look at it as “How do you ensure the Raid is never easy at any scaling level but doable at most levels?” which basically means you have a set difficulty and size in mind but you still add some scaling mechanics to make other sizes “possible” even if it’s not “optimized”.

So, if Im understanding right, what youre saying is yes, implement typical scaling to a fight in terms of how much health the boss has, number of adds, etc – but at the same time design encounter mechanics based on an optimally sized group (being careful to make sure the fight isnt impossible because of some mechanic that required a larger number of people).

So, as an example, optimize mechanics based around having 16 people, but allow the boss’s health (and possibly number of adds) to scale down to groups of 8.

If they can make that work, I think it is the ideal solution. It eliminates all concerns regarding group size, retains the difficulty level people are looking for (by emphasizing strategy and coordination instead of just pure boss health) and allows for interesting fight design. With the right fight design, the challenging mechanics are what will set raiding apart – not some arbitrary group size designed to create the illusion of difficulty (by putting the primary emphasis on calculated DPS versus a set health pools and enrage mechanics – the way other raiding games do).

To add a level to this idea, they could easily add in achievements for completing the content at different group sizes (8, 12 and 16 people for example), adding greater incentive to go back and experience the content with different sized groups.

This is definitely the direction and kind of idea I want to discuss.

It emphasizes challenge over numbers and gives more socially oriented guilds the flexibility they need to retain that sense of community and teamwork that currently allows GW2 to shine above other games.

Symph.8407:

But, what I meant was: you have voiced your concern for accessibility with fixed size raids (or just one size), and I’m sure the devs have read that concern.

I really dont want to get involved in a back and forth, but the topic has not been addressed in full – something that even the developers agreed about when they said it would be tabled until after the mechanics discussion.

If the idea of scaling and/or multiple raid sizes is included – at least as an option – in the proposal Chris references, then I agree its okay to move to the next phase.

Otherwise, the conversation is needed – focused on topics such as which mechanics would/wouldnt work with flexible raid sizes, what compromises would they need to make to with the up-to-15 model Chris proposed, how would multiple raid sizes effect development time, etc.

We tried to address the topic early on only to be asked to wait, which we have done. Now that we’ve waited, I think the “just let it drop now” response just doesn’t cut it.

I am not the only one who feels that way – just look back through the “3 points” posts at the number of times scaling and accessibility are brought up. It deserves to be part of the consideration – if not part of the conversation.

I apologize for the multiple posts. I hope everyone can see that I am trying to be as respectful and productive as possible. I believe in open honest discussion and collaboration and love that Anet chose to offer the opportunity to do so.

Symph.8407:

Blaeys.3102:

To put it simply, the pros outweigh the cons. Accessibility should be more important than both logistics and development time. If it takes you a month or two longer to add in a second size to accommodate the player base better, then I think many of us would GLADLY wait that time. Do it right the first time – give us raids, but give us ALL raids.

To be honest, I also think many of us would hate to wait another 2 months before getting raids, just so there could be more than one size to choose from..

I have every faith in ANet to know their own capabilities when it comes to development and development time, and I’m sure they are well aware of the wishes from part of the community for broad accessibility to the raids.
Now lets make the proposal focus on the core parts of the raids, which should be the design, and then let ANet’s development team focus on whether or not it will be worth the (balancing and development) time to make several sizes or scaling raids..

I understand the need to move forward, but, imo, this would be akin to building rooms without first agreeing on a floorplan.

The content of the raid is dependent on the context of the raid – in other words, a scalable raid would be developed differently than a set size raid. The same is true, to a lesser degree with multiple sized raids. That factor would need to be considered at the start of the process – not the end (which is why the mechanics conversation has veered in so many different and, often, conflicting, directions).

We suspended discussion of this topic early in this thread because Chris assured it would be readdressed prior to moving to the next phase (even though others kept bringing it up). I realize the CDI was brought to an early halt due to other infighting, but that doesnt mean this isnt still an issue people care about. It still deserves attention and discussion (especially since the people involved have gone out of their way to remain polite, productive and accommodating to the CDI process in anticipation of this discussion).

How raids are formed and how exclusive/inclusive they are is probably one of (if not the) most important elements that people care about. Content can (and should) vary greatly within the model they decide to go with, but the processes and accessibility model they choose to build raids upon will be the first decision they have to make (and is something we want to collaborate on).

I do not want to slow the conversation or process – I just want to make sure it is truly collaborative and doesnt move forward with assumptions that many still have significant issue with (while there is still room for collaboration).

Chris Whiteside.6102:

This CDI will move on to the proposal stage tomorrow so get your top three in please folks.

Chris

With all respect, I don’t think we can put together a proposal that accurately represents what the community is looking for without first having the logistics conversation we touched on earlier in this thread -

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Let’s allow for more foundational discussion and then we can discuss two raid group sizes in terms of pros and cons.

Does that sound ok?

Chris

This is even more evident when you look back through the “top three” posts and note how many times people reference flexibility, accessibility and even scaling (despite being told it was set numbers). So this definitely isnt just one person (me) making noise. It is something that needs to be a part of any proposal.

I get that you are opposed to scaling (even though, if done in a limited fashion, I think it could work). That is why I proposed a different model – developing raids sizes of 8 and 12 concurrently. That way, as long as you have a minimum of 8, you would never need to find more than 3 people to fill out a raid group.

So the pros and cons of two raid group sizes:

The Pros

• People aren’t left out of organized raid nights because of logistics (math)
• Raids are accessible to everyone – the only limiting factor becomes skill.
• In line with the early vision of the game – fun, friendly environment where friends can play together.

The Cons

• Longer development cycles
• Makes it (VERY slightly) harder to balance difficult fights in the development phase

To put it simply, the pros outweigh the cons. Accessibility should be more important than both logistics and development time. If it takes you a month or two longer to add in a second size to accommodate the player base better, then I think many of us would GLADLY wait that time. Do it right the first time – give us raids, but give us ALL raids.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Blaeys.3102:

So if I have a raid night where i have two groups – one of 15 and the other with the remaining 8 (as an example), they are going to have the same chances to beat the encounters if the players involved are at roughly the same skill level?

If that is true, then I’m happy. That would be putting skill at a more important level than numbers.

So this is a very clever question which does need to be answered regardless of raid number sets. If it’s ok though let’s discuss it when we get to raid number set discussions.

Chris

This is another issue we haven’t addressed (even though 2 raid sizes would address it well).

I know this takes away from the 3-point post, but it is something we agreed to readdress prior to the proposal phase.

I would hate to see raid development move forward and turn into something that feels, not just unfriendly, but completely different from the rest of the game. You have a dedicated player base that LOVES this game (with me at the very top of the list). Raiding can be done – but it needs to be done in the same spirit with which you’ve approached the game as a whole.

I think youre knee jerk reacting just a little.

Cursed Shores (and the rest of Orr) is still very much alive. And, if it isnt, all you have to do is pop a commander tag and advertise in LFG for 30 seconds.

Southsun has a loot train running most days.

It’s still pretty easy to find a decent Dry Top map, at least during prime time. If youre willing to tag up and use LFG, you will have a full map in no time.

The nerf to SW rewards didnt really hit it even 1/10th as hard as people on these forums are trying to claim. It just did what it was supposed to do – put the emphasis back on the mechanics of the map. Ive seen a couple of 5/5 kills since the nerf.

So, the XYZ map is dead argument really doesnt hold up unless you only look at forums and dont look at what’s actually in game.

Lifestealer.4910:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

NoTrigger.8396:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Why should “all glass cannon” be the most efficient way to run every dungeon?

because
1. its the way with the highest risk involved
2. its the only way that makes full use of the combat system
3. its the only way that 100% depends on player skill, teamwork and nothing else.

1. Almost true. When you kill enemies before they can even fire off their third attack (and a GC ele can even tank the first two), not so much. That’s pretty close to the lowest risk.
2. Well, no it doesn’t. The “combat system” involves a lot of parts that never see use in speedruns currently, such as conditions, boon removal, snares, etc.. Balanced groups actually make full use of the combat system.
3. Not so much “player skill” as “rotations”, but I will agree with teamwork. Enemies in dungeons are currently too simplistic for player skill to be a large factor. It relies more on the limitations of enemies rather than player skill.

As an aside, has anyone done speedruns of Aetherpath? I’m curious about that one because it does feature more challenging enemies.

Anyone can pull off some wierd scenarios to make X look bad.

How about fighting lupicus zerker vs cleric or pvt gear?.. see which is higher risk? hint hint, its not the cleric or pvt gear

Actually, that’s debatable. I would say doing it in clerics or pvt would involve the greater risk because the fight takes longer and there are more opportunities for slip ups or deaths.

Survivability in this game has much more to do with active abilities, such as dodges and blocks, and traits than it does with stats (which is a good thing but does raise some interesting questions related to gear).

The issue (not ready to call it a problem) with gear is that (in PVE at least) the difference between zerker and soldiers gear is primarily how fast you can kill a target. That’s pretty much it. Outside of damage output, gear choice really doesn’t have a palpable impact on your build or playstyle. You can dodge, block, use boons, cc the boss, etc just as much in zerker as you can in Magi’s gear.

It would be interesting to hear what the intended design was from a dev. Was gear supposed to be a strategic choice in PVE or was it meant to provide stepping stones for players to get better until they can run in full zerker (I dont think it really does either) – or is there some other logic to the stat setups we currently have?

I kinda wish that offensive stats on gear had been one area where they had deviated from other games at launch. Given the core mechanics of the game, I think it would have made more sense to give everyone the same power, condi damage, crit rating and ferocity and only put defensive stat combinations (vitality, toughness, healing power, boon duration, etc) on armor. That would have made balance easier but still given gear stats some use.

It also makes sense from a release schedule perspective. In all likelihood, we’ll get 3 more living story patches, Wintersday (maybe jumbled a little with one of the LS patches coming after Wintersday), and then it will probably be time for the next feature patch – which is when a new profession, if it is even planned, would make sense.

Ritualist would be a nice addition to the game. There is a lot they could do to make a shamanistic or spiritual enchanter type class (which is what I see the ritualist becoming in GW2) unique and still work in the game.

They are also fairly common drops when your map gets 5/5 bosses killed.

Ive gotten 5 sets of shoulders so far – three from the living story (running alts through) and two from Silverwastes as loot rewards.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

There is one at all 4 bosses actually. They allow you to respawn the boss and reset the associated achievement if you fail it. This means you don’t have to redo the entire instance every time you fail an achievement, and instead can stay in the instance until you finish them.

Thank you.

I wished I had figured this out myself . I slipped up on the achievement for last boss (forgot to get rid of the trait that gave my phantasms fury) and just assumed I had to redo everything.

Live and learn – and thanks again for the answer.

When I went back to replay the instance for achievements, I noticed there were two challenge motes – one at the beginning of the Lair and one immediately before the last boss.

I tried to interact with the first but nothing happened. Does anyone know if these do anything?

If they dont, a question for devs – are they something you planned for but changed your mind about or are they a portent of things to come? Do you plan to revisit the instance and add a challenge mode similar to the Shadow of the Dragon instance?

Just curious if anyone knows more about these challenge motes at this point.

Engineer Turrets have the same issue. They dont share your protection on the fight.

The fight is still possible with those professions, but it is a little frustrating.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Blaeys.3102:

Simple request for everyone – once you finish writing your posts, go back and read it as if it were being written to you. If it includes snarky comments, any kind of name calling at all, condescending statements or anything else hateful, cut those lines out before you hit post.

They get in the way of the actual conversation and they’re going to end up getting the thread closed and leaving a bad impression of a potential raiding community with the developers. Neither is something anyone should desire.

This.
Please.
I read the forums every day, as does Chris. And he puts a lot of his own time into the CDIs. (He doesn’t know I’m writing this, but I’m writing this, you can be sure!)

My bullet list for today:

• The forums are a wonderful thing.
• The CDIs are a great thing—some of the best that the forums can offer.
• The people involved all have, I truly believe, the game’s bests interests at heart.
• I want, more importantly we want, the forums to be healthy, and a safe place for people to express themselves even when in complete, heartfelt disagreement with another forum member. Or even when you disagree with a GW2 Team member.
• The best way to accomplish that is to write, read, re-read, and then hit “submit.”
• And always, always keep in mind that when it comes to text, it’s far too easy to come off wrong, to be completely mistaken about the content or the tone of a comment.

If you read this, thanks.
If you act upon this, thank you even more.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled CDI, with this request:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Your top three priorities can be anything you like as long as they pertain to raiding.

Chris

A thought that might streamline the conversation -

Would it be technically possible/realistic to limit the number and size of posts during the first 48 hours of a CDI. So, for example, each player would be allowed one post of no more than 300 words in the first two days of the thread.

After 2 days, the thread could open up to longer posts and back and forth discussions – after everyone has had the chance to get their initial thoughts out – and limit alot of the knee jerk reactions and conversations heading off on tangents.

Just a thought. Dont want to derail the “3 ideas” discussion. If this post impedes that or you feel is in the wrong place or innappropriate, feel free to delete.

Here you go:

• Accessibilility: The barrier to completing a raid should be the challenge of that raid, not logistics. It should be easy for groups to ensure everyone gets a chance to raid when guilds (or groups of friends) get together. If that means scaling, so be it – even though I think you can do better than that (either through multiple tiers or through smart fight design that isnt reliant upon numbers).

• Challenging Content: You have proven (just yesterday actually) that you can develop challenging content. I would love to see how you would extend that to larger groups.

• Designed for Every Raider: We’ve talked alot about what a raid is, but we havent really looked at what makes a player a potential raider in GW2. I think alot of people just assume that this group would be made up of people who enjoyed raiding in other games. Please dont limit yourself to that population subset if/when you begin developing this content. Raiding should be something that every player – if they decide its of interest to them – should find fun and accessible.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Morning,

Ok I have been up all night reading the posts and thinking about this CDI.

To be frank this is not a good CDI, specifically because whilst some folks are trying to be collaborative and have valuable discussion others are just bullying with their different agendas.

I have always said that if a CDI loses its value on both sides that it will be stopped.

So I am at some what of a loss. I can’t tell anymore if it is of value to this group. Whilst it certainly has been valuable for us it has been extremely time consuming to get to the good stuff.

So I will leave it up to you folks. If you feel you can work more collaboratively then by all means let me know that you want to carry on.

If you feel that it is a lost cause then I will ask for everyone’s top three priorities for raiding and call it a day.

I want to say thank you very much to all those who tried to follow the rules of the CDI and who had a healthy discussion. I also wanted to say a big thank you to TTS and DnT. We appreciate your feedback.

Chris

Thank you for the honesty and for all of your efforts in pushing this thread forward.

I lead a guild with a roster of 356 players, 200+ of whom are what I would consider very active in the game (log on at least 2-3 times a week). We arent as well known as a TTS or DnT, but we are a very tight knit group and include some of your game’s most ardent and loyal supporters. While I respect the opinions those guilds bring, I hope you respect that the potential raiding community is MUCH larger and much more diverse than those guilds.

The discussions I bring to this thread are on behalf of my guild members – and something we have discussed many times as a group. I can say that raiding is something the vast majority of my guild would really enjoy if done properly.

At this point, I think you’ve seen the points that most people care about in this CDI. While more could be said/discussed, you’re probably justified in calling an end to this thread. The hate and arguments have taken over to the point they are drowning real discussion.

Again, thanks for the efforts and patience in this thread. Many of us truly appreciate the chance to be part of the discussion.

As a side/final note, if you’re looking for a topic for the next CDI, I would vote for a discussion about guild missions.

Crystal Reid.2481:

moiraine.2753:

Chris,

I want to ask you something.Will Defiance be redesigned?Is there any plan for it at all?Because right now it is removing the need of any CC in the fights.If raids come will interrupts,stuns,fear become an actual mechanic?Will they be more useful from now?

All I can say on this is we have been talking about it internally and trying to come up with different solutions that make CC valuable without allowing players to “stun lock” creatures (which would be a very real problem if we did not have Defiance). I can’t say any more on that at this time, so here’s a better question for you:

If we removed Defiance, how would you propose a replacement that makes CC (interrupts, stuns, fears etc) valuable without creating a situation that allows players to CC a creature to death.

I think defiance works fine in most situations, but its not perfect.

I (and its just my opinion) would prefer if defiance stacks were unique to the player rather than to the boss or the group. So, instead of 15 stacks of defiance on the boss, every player would see 5 stacks of defiance that applied only to them. This would allow individual players greater control over when their ccs would work and when they wouldnt.

I realize that may offer a technical challenge not possible with your game engine, however (I am just guessing).

If that is the case, I would propose a hybrid solution – keep defiance just as it is now, but add the Three Toed Tootsie method to your toolkit as well. Even with bosses that have defiance, use a short cc-vulnerability window for those huge attacks that have to be interrupted to avoid failing the encounter. Again, use it sparingly if you go this route, but it is an option.

Concept:
Use Gear/Survivability disparities to allow natural raid scaling (without actually scaling)

Details:
I think there may be a good compromise we can reach by taking a macro view of the gear, difficulty, numbers and fight design issues.

On the one hand, you have people asking for an immensely challenging experiences that, hopefully emphasize skill and coordination more than numbers and gear.

At the same time, you have people (like me) advocating for some flexibility in how raids are sized and still others looking for a place for non zerker/assassin’s gear in the design.

There is some logical synergy here.

How it would work (theoretically)

If they design a fight to be ultra challenging for a group of 15 full zerker players but stay away from hard timer mechanics (including enrage timers), then the current game system may very well provide us with a natural scaling mechanic that makes everyone happy (without having to resort to actual scaling or multiple raid tiers).

Basically, the challenge of doing the fight with fewer people shifts from how fast you can burn down the fight to how well you can stay alive. The assumption can be that groups lower than 15 may include some people wearing more support-focused gear.

The fights in those situations will last longer, but there will be a place for groups lower than 15, putting my concerns about leaving people behind on guild raid nights to rest.

Potential Risks

The risk/compromise is that a full group of 15 players with more people wearing survival gear will find the fight less stressful (albeit longer) and a little less challenge (with the trade off being the fight takes longer)

That is fine. As NoTrigger likes to point out, that is part of the current game design anyway. Why not embrace it – opening raiding to larger portions of the population without denying groups their challenging content.

To the point of not trivializing content, that is, imo, a non issue. Speed run groups will continue to challenge themselves to beat it faster and faster – and guilds with a more social agenda (like mine) will still have a place in the raid model dynamic.

The second compromise would be NO ENRAGE TIMERS. That single mechanic is the only real barrier to making this happen. Likewise, they would need to stay away from any mechanic that required the entire party to focus burn (just using DPS) any element of the encounter. This isnt an issue if they get creative – by requiring interrupts, cleanses, specific ccs, etc to act as the catalyst in those situations rather than just damage output.

Like I said in an earlier post, there are better ways to challenge players than an artificial timer wall.

Win-Win.

The importance of Achievements

To keep a sense of accomplishment for those groups who fully embrace the rigid number cap and put hours into their builds and stat choices (mostly builds), there should be baseline achievements (with multiple tiers) in every raid, including the following:

• Multiple achievements for the speed of the kill. Additionally, after a certain number of groups achieve the fastest speed achievement, Anet should add new faster kill achievements in (slight rewards/aknowledgement for speed runners).

• Survival achievements – personal achievements for not dying and for not getting downed throughout the raid. Group achievements for the same thing at a group level (not letting anyone die or get downed).

• Optional Boss Victories – Most raids should include one OPTIONAL ultra hard core boss for those groups looking for the extra challenge. Maybe do something like the bonus phase of Aetherpath, where, once the final raid boss is complete, the group is assaulted for 10 minutes by progressively harder versions of a legendary beast with complex mechanics (with achievements for how many waves/versions you kill).

The point is, use the disparities in gear and the fact that some gear does make encounters a little easier to enable smaller raid parties to experience the content from day one. As I’ve already said -

Win-Win.