Guild Wars 2

Crystal Reid.2481:

So to get back to your question… Let’s assume that because raiding would be a very new type of content for the game that it’s possible for us to re-write the principles of the game that we have seen so far. So having said that where do you feel raiding falls (end game VS horizontal)?

The principles of the game are what drew people to GW2 from other games in the first place. For a great many of us, that hasnt changed. Moving away from those principles – specifically the concepts of accessibility and shared friendly gameplay – then you destroy the reason many of us are here.

More practically, to answer your question, I would hate to see GW2 become another carbon copy of every other MMO where the only goal is to rush to raid capable status and then the end games becomes little more than raid >waiting for the next raid > raid. That is the wrong place for developers to focus their efforts and it would turn this game into something many of us wouldnt be interested in any longer. This isnt World of Warcraft – it’s GW2. Please keep it that way.

To make it clear though, that doesnt mean we dont want challenging raids or that every encounter should be faceroll. It just means that endgame should be seen as it is now – a wide variety of activities that players can do together. More importantly, you need to do it with the principles and ideals of the game in mind and improve upon what weve seen elsewhere (in typical Anet fashion) – how can it be made inclusive, how will it fit with other endgame content, how can raiding be a way to bring the community together or give friendly players something fun to do with ALL of their friends (not just 10 or 25)? These are important tentpoles holding up the GW2 community. Dont tear them down just to give us something only a small percentage really want (limited exclusionary raiding).

So, in terms of your principles for the game, you really need to stay the course. Raiding can be a fun addition, but it shouldnt be the end all end all of end game.

Nokaru.7831:

Scaling:

• You cannot achieve perfect balance without fixing the raid size. However, fixed raid sizes have always been an issue with accessibility. These two factors are simply irreconcilable. The more accessible you try to make a raid, the less perfectly it will become balanced.
  
  For example: Let’s say that a raid could scale between 10 and 40 players. There would inevitably be some “sweet spot” difficulty that would be considered the easiest. (i.e.: 23) The community will recognize this and raid groups would then only fill up to that amount. Even though they could take in more players, they know this makes it more difficult for themselves, and therefore won’t. This happened during the Boss Blitz and also Tequatl on the turret defense teams. This has happened in other games as well that have attempted this.

Suggested Raid Size:

• It should be between about 10-15 in my opinion. The group should not be so large that fights become “zergy.” I believe making raiding accessible is important, even though there will inevitably be some “easier” or “harder” size. However, it should not have a huge range, and should definitely not creep into the “zergy” territory. There comes a point where it begins to not matter what an individual is doing anymore. (“Spamming 1”) It also becomes incredibly more difficult to actually kill players because of how many revives there are potentially.

I like the recommendation of scaling between 8 and 16. This would make raiding viable as long as you have at least 8 people. As examples:

- If 8-16 people show up, you have one raid group
- if 17 people show up, you have two: one 8 man and one 9 man raid.
- If 33 people show up, you have three: one 16 man, one 8 and one 9 man raid

There are very few feasible numbers (none above 8 that I can think of) that would not result in feasible raid group sizes with this range – and it is a slight enough range that they should be able to develop something engaging and difficult.

Crystal Reid.2481:

runeblade.7514:

Controversal Topics that I see around this thread.

• Scaling- Should Raids be rigid to make balancing easier or, should Raids be very flexible so that all guilds can be more inclusive to their members?

• Difficulty- Should Raids be easy enough for casual players, or should raids be difficult so it requires skill on the risk of excluding casual player.

• Stacking- What steps should be taken to remove stacking or should it even be removed at all?

• AI- What AI should be in place?

• Rewards- How rewarding should Raids be?

• Punishment- How punishing should failing a raid be? How punishing should dying be?

These are all really excellent questions! I would love to see some drilling down into these specifics with your proposals.

Scaling:

While it isnt perfect, it is preferable to the alternative. As Ive said before, the idea of possibly having to leave people I have been playing with for a long time out of guild raid nights makes me sick to my stomach a little. That said, I do believe scaling should be limited to make harder raids plausible (for example raids that scale from 8-24 people).

Difficulty:

The difficulty should come in the coordination and teamwork required to accomplish the task at hand. I understand this is hard to reconcile with scaling issues, but I think that is a challenge GW2/ArenaNet should try to overcome. The downside to scaling is just too great. There have been some good recommendations regarding this topic throughout this thread already.

Practically, I think the demarcation comes at the coordination level. Raids shouldnt be possible by groups that refuse to communicate in any way, but, at the same time, they shouldnt necessarily require voice comm programs either. You should shoot for a difficulty somewhere between the two.

Bottom line, though – EVERY player should be considered when designing raids. You really have to avoid creating tiers or castes of players in game based on who is and who isn’t allowed to raid (by the community).

Stacking:

In my opinion, this issue is not exclusive to raids and should be tabled or discussed in a separate thread.

AI:

Same as stacking, this is a macro topic that could apply to just about any PVE content in the game. Let’s focus on the areas exclusive to raiding (at least in this thread).

Rewards:

Raiding cannot be seen as the pinnacle of GW2 end game. It has to be complimentary to dungeons, Living Story, WvW, guild missions, world bosses, etc. If it isn’t approached this way, you risk creating an in game caste system similar to those found in other games (and that many of us came to GW2 to escape from). Rewards need to be modeled after reward models in other areas of the game (if there are issues with rewards as a whole, they should be addressed in a macro thread as well).

Punishment for failing a raid:

Punishment from failure should not include any kind of lock out (eg, only X number of attempts a week). Telling people they cannot participate in part of the game isnt what GW2 is about. Beyond that, im unsure what is meant by punishment.

Ive posted alot in this thread (and doubt I am done) because this is a topic I care alot about. On one hand, I worry that something akin to raiding from other games (and the hate and exclusionary actions that comes with it) will sneak its way into GW2. On the other hand, Im excited at the prospect of something new to do with my guild and large groups of friends in game.

I trust Anet to think of all guilds and all players if/when they take the game down this path.

Conski Deshan.2057:

That Guy.5704:

Blaeys.3102:

That Guy.5704:

Crystal Reid.2481:

Leablo.2651:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Leablo.2651:

Chris, can you provide a baseline definition of “raid”? What exactly is the intention behind creating “raid” content that cannot already be expressed in terms of existing dungeons or fractals? Is it about creating another category of content that is gated to guilds?

Here you go:

‘…instanced co-operative group based ‘challenging’ content…’

Chris

This seems to conflict with the title of the thread, which implies “instanced co-operative guild based ‘challenging’ content…”

I would just like clarification on that.

Should raids be restricted to the guild level that require some form of guild activity/currency to activate/enter, or should they be accessible by anyone? What are your thoughts on that specific?

This depends on the way raids are set up. There was a sort of “pre-thread” to this one where there was discussion on raids being either an enterable instance or actually a small map that people could enter and exit freely. Personally, I think both could work. It would essentially be the difference between hot-join and team pvp.
…

I think you are heading the right direction with this.

This could be accomplished easily through something similar to the custom spvp interface, which has a section at the bottom allowing the owner to add either guilds or individuals to the invite (or allowed entry) list.

They could take a further nod from that interface and include a “public/private” toggle to accomodate pugs. Participants could then either visit an NPC in Lion’s Arch (or wherever) or open their own list that shows all of the active raid instances they can join – whether they are created by their guild or by an individual.

The question becomes how does the leader gain access to the interface. To answer Crystal’s question, I say why limit it to one method.

Why not allow the following:

- A permanent version purchasable for a guild using influence/merits. Then the guild leader could manually determine who in the guild can access the interface based on guild rank (much the way we determine who can start guild missions now).

- A one time version purchasable with either gold or gems. This would allow individuals to form raid parties as well to experience content.

- A permanent version purchasable with tokens acquired inside the raids themselves. This would promote diversity and allow guilds/groups that raid alot to have multiple raid leaders/raids going simultaneously.

Not a perfect solution, but I think the general idea is there somewhere.

unless, in the case of the prepared group style, it functions more like solo-pvp. Players “sign in” to a list and the person starting the list can pick the map to be played/difficulty etc, EDIT: with the public private options. When the list reaches either some minimum or the otherwise required number of players you get the little dialog that sad “your map is ready. go now?” or something like that. You still have to take scaling and rewards into consideration, but it might be the easiest, non-small guild gated way to do it.

I’m not particularly sure what problem you’re trying to solve here? what is wrong with a standard instance?

Also in your idea, how do you prevent someone entering at a later stage of the raid say at the last boss and being there for the kill , getting all the rewards for none of the effort? This shouldn’t be like a dungeon where its come and go, otherwise you’ll end up with path sellers and guilds kicking people at the end.
My vision would be that a person has to defeat each boss in the raid to progress to the next, no skipping or ferrying in to a later stage.

Standard instancing would require people be in a party larger than five, so that would have to be addressed. There is also the question of how scaling would work with a standard instance portal.

The simple solution to the arriving late issue is simple. Inside the “instance” there is a flag just like the flags used to start guild missions. Once the raid leader clicks that flag and starts the raid, the raid closes to new entries (or not – there could be a toggle in the interface for that as well).

Edit: That Guy beat me to it. (Darn that guy ).

I know it’s not the perfect answer, but I would focus on finding a good and friendly guild. That is where you find most of the kind of groups you would be looking for.

That Guy.5704:

Crystal Reid.2481:

Leablo.2651:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Leablo.2651:

Chris, can you provide a baseline definition of “raid”? What exactly is the intention behind creating “raid” content that cannot already be expressed in terms of existing dungeons or fractals? Is it about creating another category of content that is gated to guilds?

Here you go:

‘…instanced co-operative group based ‘challenging’ content…’

Chris

This seems to conflict with the title of the thread, which implies “instanced co-operative guild based ‘challenging’ content…”

I would just like clarification on that.

Should raids be restricted to the guild level that require some form of guild activity/currency to activate/enter, or should they be accessible by anyone? What are your thoughts on that specific?

This depends on the way raids are set up. There was a sort of “pre-thread” to this one where there was discussion on raids being either an enterable instance or actually a small map that people could enter and exit freely. Personally, I think both could work. It would essentially be the difference between hot-join and team pvp.
…

I think you are heading the right direction with this.

This could be accomplished easily through something similar to the custom spvp interface, which has a section at the bottom allowing the owner to add either guilds or individuals to the invite (or allowed entry) list.

They could take a further nod from that interface and include a “public/private” toggle to accomodate pugs. Participants could then either visit an NPC in Lion’s Arch (or wherever) or open their own list that shows all of the active raid instances they can join – whether they are created by their guild or by an individual.

The question becomes how does the leader gain access to the interface. To answer Crystal’s question, I say why limit it to one method.

Why not allow the following:

- A permanent version purchasable for a guild using influence/merits. Then the guild leader could manually determine who in the guild can access the interface based on guild rank (much the way we determine who can start guild missions now).

- A one time version purchasable with either gold or gems. This would allow individuals to form raid parties as well to experience content.

- A permanent version purchasable with tokens acquired inside the raids themselves. This would promote diversity and allow guilds/groups that raid alot to have multiple raid leaders/raids going simultaneously.

Not a perfect solution, but I think the general idea is there somewhere.

How about this as a compromise to the scaling issue:

1. The developers create the raid assuming it would be completed by a set number of people. So, they create a 12 person (arbitrary number) raid that involves a huge amount of coordination and eats our faces. Drop something extremely hard into the game that takes weeks for a 12 person group to beat.

2. Developers then go back and add scaling in anyway. The instance is open for groups ranging up to 40 people. The scaling is the same basic scaling we see in the open world. The mechanics arent changed at all, just the scaling. The raid remains somewhat challenging, but is now open to a much wider range of players.

3. Finally, they implement unique achievements (and possibly minis or titles) for completing the raid with 12 or fewer people. This is where hardcore groups can find their challenge, without depriving others of the experience or potentially fracturing guilds with players at divergent skill levels.

I think this would address both issues. Groups dont have to leave people out, but those people looking for a very difficult raid still have it. Additionally, it gives hardcore groups a way to practice (if they want it) and see mechanics with larger groups before taking the smaller groups in for the achievement runs (which should be tuned to take weeks to complete at the 12 person level).

Just a thought in the spirit of compromise. I believe scaling is crucial – for the reasons Ive posted in previous pages, but I also understand the desire for something brutal and torturous. If they can do both, even at the expense of a little additional development time, it is worth doing.

Crystal Reid.2481:

Hi guys!

I thought I’d swing by and leave a quick introduction as I’ll be working with Chris to monitor this thread (and because I don’t post nearly as much as he does on the forums so most of you are unfamiliar with me in these CDI discussions).

I previously worked on some of the Fractals, Tequatl/Triple Trouble, and the Boss Blitz. Much like you all, I have an invested interest in raiding and I’m extremely excited to discuss what that could mean in Guild Wars 2!

There are already some really great discussions going on! I’m trying to get caught up on everything now and looking forward to reading more of your ideas.

Welcome to the discussion.

hybrid.5027:

Blaeys.3102:

I can tell you from years of experience forming set number (10 and 25 player) raids that raiding in other games leads to exclusionary behavior primarily because of the math more than because of the difficulty of the content. GW2 is in a position to do something about that. Scaling seems like the most logical solution.

Exclusion is the inevitable (and desirable) result of challenging content. I was excluded from the tPvP tournament in china (and rightly so!) but I in no way feel entitled to it.

Also, keep in mind no matter how difficult they tune the content eventually it will be on farm status. Once content is on farm status the casuals (in the non-pejorative sense) who were initially excluded will be able to complete it. This is how raids in every game work. Hardcore players finish first, less hard core players finish it later.

This is not about casual versus hardcore. This is about the practical problem of forming raid groups. Someone who puts the effort in and makes a greater commitment should finish first, but if you have 12 people at that level, two will either be left out because of simple math or be forced to find another guild or group to play with (fracturing the community).

This is not an issue in dungeons because it is easier to fill in multiple slots in smaller groups. That is why I think the hardcore content in GW2 should be in dungeons.

Set number raids bring a logisitics problem that will fracture groups and that goes against what GW2 has come to represent (at least for many of us).

Let me say this loud – I DO WANT HARDER CONTENT. I love hard challenges (25 man Alone in the Darkness Yogg Saron level challenges).

What I dont want are those challenges at the expense of comraderie and guild/large group cohesion. It’s why I left WoW and quit leading traditional raids. It is why I got so excited about GW2 when I saw what they were doing in this game – precisely because they werent following the model other MMO were using.

Its about math, not difficulty level or hardcore vs casual.

So, let them grind us into little chunks of pixelated chum in 5-player dungeons (or, just as good, shorter instances they deliver much more often). I say, bring it on. Up the game and get nasty with it.

But, the simple math of set number raids would have a potentially devastating effect on established communities, and makes it a bad idea (imo) to not use scaling in raids.

NoTrigger.8396:

Blaeys.3102:

If 10, 15, 20 or 25 player raids (with no scaling) were implemented, this wouldnt be the case. Many players would be left on the sidelines due to the arbitrary number requirements. Even worse, groups that play together now in larger numbers would be forced to leave friends out of weekly raids (again, the thought of this turns my stomach and would be devastating to the way I enjoy playing the game).

i am forced to leave friends out because i can only play with 4 friends at a time in dungeons.

Yes, but it is alot easier to fill out a second 5 party group if you end up with 1 or 2 extra players than it is to fill out another 10, 15, etc. group. I did this just last night in setting up dungeons in my guild.

I can tell you from years of experience forming set number (10 and 25 player) raids that raiding in other games leads to exclusionary behavior primarily because of the math more than because of the difficulty of the content. GW2 is in a position to do something about that. Scaling seems like the most logical solution.

Like many, I would love to see harder more complex fights with set numbers (no scaling), but I think the place for that content is in 5-player dungeons – and not in raids.

The reason is accessibility. With 5-player dungeons, it is very easy for any player, at any commitment level, to find a party willing to attempt the content. Even if they struggle or fail miserably, they get the chance to experience and attempt the content. It’s easy to find 4 other people willing to make the attempt.

If 10, 15, 20 or 25 player raids (with no scaling) were implemented, this wouldnt be the case. Many players would be left on the sidelines due to the arbitrary number requirements. Even worse, groups that play together now in larger numbers would be forced to leave friends out of weekly raids (again, the thought of this turns my stomach and would be devastating to the way I enjoy playing the game).

Raiding can still have a level of difficult and necessary coordination, but everyone should be afforded the opportunity. Scaling does that.

A developer brought up the point of scaling requiring more design effort and limiting the number of raids they can produce. I’m okay with that. Give us a few fun raids that scale between 8 and 30 people (with a moderate difficulty level) and focus more developer effort on making 5-player dungeons/instances that cause us to cringe in fear ((with adaptive AI, anti-stacking/zerg mechanics, etc). Basically use new dungeons to turn us into quivering piles of Jello.

Raids should be something every player can enjoy – while still requiring coordination and commitment (but not requiring numbers set in stone).

tldr: Players of any commitment level can still usually find a party willing to attempt an ultra hard 5 player dungeon. They wouldn’t be able to do the same with set number large scale raids. They would never even get the chance. Take that into account when implementing raiding in GW2.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

A few have asked what we should start with. To re-iterate we should start by discussing what raiding could be in GW2 with the foundation based on the core pillars of our game.

So think about accessibility, how our combat works, how our progression works, and so on.

Thanks,

Chris

This is a hard conversation to have because most players bring preconceived notions of what raiding should be to the discussion – based on other games which, bluntly, do not conform well with the core tenets of GW2.

So, let’s look at the three aspects you list.

To me, accessibility is the most important concern. It is why I am arguing so hard in favor of scaling. The idea of having to leave people out of a guild raid night because the math doesnt work turns my stomach, especially after doing missions, temple runs, open world, dry top, holidays, past living story fights (marionette, etc), WvW, etc alongside those people for years now. It would be a nightmare.

Regarding combat systems/encounters, I think you have designed some fun large scale encounters already. The marionette was one of the best received updates you ever put out, as was the Breachmaker fight (which only suffered because many servers simply didnt have enough people) and the Tower of Nightmares. Instead of reinventing the wheel, fall back on what you do well. Turn these encounters into raids (albeit non traditional raids) – and look at future living story content in the same light. Break away from the rigid model other games use and play to your strengths.

If you are talking about how raids should progress from one to the next, the answer is simple – and again, it goes back to not reinventing the wheel, but rather falling back on one of your current strengths – the Living Story. Raids should either tie into the LS or, as Ive proposed, be a way to keep open world events (like the Marrionette) alive permanently after its chapter in the LS is complete.

To the point of rewards/progression, you have to be careful. A core tenet of GW2 (at least I think it is) is the idea that you can play any content at end game without feeling like you have to do that particular content, or that others are getting a better reward than you are. Raiding shouldnt be seen as the pinnacle of end game content, but rather as content complimentary to open world, dungeons, pvp and wvw. The rewards should look the same in all three areas with none holding any prestige over the others. To me, the best system is the one already in place – a world boss reward chest (or multiple, like Tequatl) + a set number of guild merits (once again, not reinventing the wheel).

I know these ideas go counter to what raiding looks like in other games, but that is the point of GW2. To be something new.

tlsntr (too long, still need to read ): Instead of reinventing the wheel, use the talents and content you have already proven you are good at and that many of us enjoy(ed).

Arewn.2368:

Blaeys.3102:

I have a very strong opinion regarding scaling.

I understand your points, but I also know from experience (leading 25 man hardcore progression raids for 6+ years in WoW) that the most toxic part of a raid is the hard set numbers. What happens when 11/12/13/14 people are interested in raiding? Decisions have to be made to leave friends behind – and that leads to nastiness I personally never want to see in a game again.

To me, scaling is what can set raiding apart in Gw2, even if it does affect the difficulty a little (and I still believe you can design fights that require some coordination even with flexible sized groups).

This issue doesnt exist to the same degree in dungeons because if you have 12 people, you just need to find 3 more to form 3 groups, versus finding another 7 to form 2 ten man groups.

Please, I beg you guys, think really hard about the atmosphere rigid sized groups would create in the game. This is the number one reason I stopped raiding in WoW and that I was so excited for GW2 – not having to make decisions about leaving friends out of large scale activities. Please dont make me go back to that in GW2.

And to clarify, Im not against harder content, just rigid numbers in raids. It is the number one reason people find raiding such a toxic environment. You can do better than that.

Addendum: reading some of the other posts, Ive seen the idea of raid scaling floating between two numbers. If they could make the math right, I could get behind that – say scaling from 8-16 people (meaning that 11 person group would be fine. it would unlikely you would need to leave anyone out of a raid night)

GW2 already suffers greatly in many places because of scaling. Scaling is a great thing, and I really love it and wish more games would do it, but it also makes tuning the encounters inherently imprecise, sloppy. I also raided in WoW for many years, raid leading for a time as a GM, and had to deal with the numbers game. Despite that, my willingness to give up quality for the sake of number flexibility is incredibly limited, and I wouldn’t go any farther then +-1 (e.g. a 10person raid will scale for as few as 9 people, and as many as 11 people). Even that’s questionable though.

I hate to belabor it, but I strongly believe strict numbers for raids are just as much of a blight as gear requirements and treadmills.

If they cant do large scale content in a way that lets us play with all of our friends, I would rather it not be in the game at all. Many of us came to this game to get away from those kinds of things.

I still think raiding could be something much different without sacrificing fun. They may not be as complex and challenging as those found in other MMOs, but that doesnt mean they would be pushover content either.

Something like the Marionette or Breachmaker with scaling from 8 to as high as 30 would be something my guild, and many others, would enjoy immensely.

I also still believe the best use of raids would be to keep large scale Living Story events (like Marionette, Breachmaker, Ancient Karka, Tower of Nightmares) alive after they leave the living story. That is content Anet has proven they can do well (with the exception of Ancient Karka, but I do believe it would be fun without the lag from the first one) and that would make some really fun large group instanced content.

AnthonyOrdon.3926:

On scaling: it is true that we have a certain amount of “magic” scaling in the game, commonly seen in dynamic events. The intent of that system is to keep difficulty consistent across a variety of player counts. The sticking point for myself on raids and scaling is that while we can scale enemies, it is far more difficult to meaningfully scale objectives.

To elaborate, in a 10-player raid, each player is responsible for approximately 1/10 of challenge. As you add players, that challenge share diminishes, so in a 20-player raid, the individual role is about half as important as it would have been with 10 players (challenges of coordination aside).

Of course, group content is rarely so singular and for a good reason. If we have 3 objectives, we divide the focus of the group and your ownership of a 20-player challenge goes from 1/20 to 1/6ish.

Is it possible, then, to just scale objectives along with the player counts? Perhaps. But it seems that would equate to just making many tiers of the content which, to me, sounds like a good way to diminish the total amount of content we could build. What do you guys think?

I have a very strong opinion regarding scaling.

I understand your points, but I also know from experience (leading 25 man hardcore progression raids for 6+ years in WoW) that the most toxic part of a raid is the hard set numbers. What happens when 11/12/13/14 people are interested in raiding? Decisions have to be made to leave friends behind – and that leads to nastiness I personally never want to see in a game again.

To me, scaling is what can set raiding apart in Gw2, even if it does affect the difficulty a little (and I still believe you can design fights that require some coordination even with flexible sized groups).

This issue doesnt exist to the same degree in dungeons because if you have 12 people, you just need to find 3 more to form 3 groups, versus finding another 7 to form 2 ten man groups.

Please, I beg you guys, think really hard about the atmosphere rigid sized groups would create in the game. This is the number one reason I stopped raiding in WoW and that I was so excited for GW2 – not having to make decisions about leaving friends out of large scale activities. Please dont make me go back to that in GW2.

And to clarify, Im not against harder content, just rigid numbers in raids. It is the number one reason people find raiding such a toxic environment. You can do better than that.

Addendum: reading some of the other posts, Ive seen the idea of raid scaling floating between two numbers. If they could make the math right, I could get behind that – say scaling from 8-16 people (meaning that 11 person group would be fine. it would unlikely you would need to leave anyone out of a raid night)

Chris Whiteside.6102:

hehe you have all been doing ninja work in the back ground (-:

Chris

In fairness, you were warned

Here are my thoughts on how raiding could work in GW2. Basically, I think there are three components –

• how we form/get into a raid
• what we do once were in, and
• how we are rewarded

Below is an overview of ideas around those three areas.

Forming/getting into a raid –

The general premise is to use existing maps and instances with triggers similar to those found in guild missions. The big difference would be that the person forming the raid would have control over who gets onto that map (much as the owner of a customized spvp map has control over the same factor).

Specifically, the interface (which, again, could mirror the custom sPvP interface) would include:

• Permissions: Would allow the guild leader to assign who has permission to trigger a guild raid/add people to the Invite list

• Raid Size: This would be to allow guilds of different sizes to complete content. Level 1 would be for 10+ people, Level 2 for 20+ and Level 3 for 30+ (they would, of course, be scalable)

• Map Used: Public (would spawn the boss or activity in a currently active map or instance open to anyone); Guild Only (would push the guild to a private map only members could access); and Invite Only (map would be accessible to guild member + other guilds/players specifically on the invite section)

• Invite List: would allow guild leaders/officers to create a list of non-guildees who could participate in “Invite Only” raid instances

Raid Content:

This would be the perfect place to resurrect past living story fights and activities, as well as brand new bosses and encounters. Below are several examples of what “raids” could look like:

• The Ancient Karka. This would be a scaled down (and much shorter) version of the first living story event GW2 ever did – the epic karka fight/race in Southsun (would be a great chance to redo that event without the lag issues). The fight would take place across the Southsun map (with the population determined by the settings outlined in the interface, above), culminating in the fight in the cave (basically, the exact same fight with the same mechanics, just scaled so guild sized groups could do it in about 20-30 minutes).

• The Tower of Nightmares. Basically, the tower of nightmares returns just as it was, on a copy of the Kessex Hills map – again scaled for guilds to complete in 20-30 minutes. At the top of the tower, the guild would encounter the boss from the mini instance from that event.

• The Marionette. Same fight, in a copy of Lornar’s Pass, only scaled for guild sized groups.

• The Breachmaker Battle. The final fight from the retaking of LA, fought aboard the Breachmaker – again, scaled for guild sized groups (this one would require adding the breachmaker fight map back in and giving us a way to get there).

• New Potential Raid: The Heart of Zhaitan. After the brave expedition downed Zhaitan in the Lost City of Arah, the original dragon (remember, he was a dragon made of dragons) that made up the “Heart of Zhaitan” is attempting to escape and go into hibernation. The raid would be an epic fight again that dragon, chasing it across a version of the Cursed Shores map, to ensure it doesn’t return for millennia to come. (the idea would be to combat the general feeling that the final fight with Zhaitan felt underwhelming and anticlimactic)

• Future Bosses: Any core large scale boss or open world content from future living story steps would be potential content. Raids would become yet another way ANet keeps the living story permanent – allowing them to change the world as needed without needing to completely remove large scale content from the game.

Rewards System:

• Rewards should be similar to guild missions, specifically a set number of guild commendations (3 or 4 seems about right) + a chest on par with a world boss chest (potentially with unique skins or minis – similar to Tequatl and Triple Worm). To make it more interesting, the introduction of raids would be a good time to introduce new rewards to the guild commendation vendor (mini versions of guild bounty bosses/new raid bosses, new weapon sets, guild armor sets, etc).

I know this exceeds 300 words and doesn’t really follow the format set forth. I didn’t feel I could convey this idea within those parameters.

That said, I am happy to see this conversation underway and look forward to many productive posts from the community. Even though we dont always agree, I think something good will come of this long term.

cesmode.4257:

All of the pro and cons in ths thread aside…

I love how arenanet forum peoples hop into threads that are benign in nature but not in something like this.

When people comment on aesthetics or some gem shop item being cool or bad, or whatever, they comment in there. But when people have concerns, they steer clear. Probably because they know that people will put them on pikes, but still.

Devs are listening.

You realize this thread was started around 3:30 am ArenaNet time and its only 7:30 am their time now.

I understand the desire for more communication, but complaining they haven’t responded to a 4 hour thread that was posted in the middle of their night is a bit ridiculous and, most likely, simply meant to inflame an issue and start an argument .

There is way too much of that on the forums. If you want to affect change, you need to do so in a more rational and level headed manner.

There is alot of potential in raids and a lot of different directions they could go. Just because they do one doesnt mean they would have to exclude another.

That said, I don’t think traditional raids, like those seen in WoW or Wildstar, would fit well in GW2. Raids in those games are designed to be the pinnacle of end game play – to the point where people really dont pay attention to the rest. GW2 has always had a more open feel at end game. I think raiding has to keep in line with that premise.

That is why I think raids, at least at first, need to feel familiar to players. The model I think would accomplish this most effectively would be the resurrection of the more popular Living Story open world events in the form of controlled-entry maps (leader decides if the map is exclusive to the group/guild or if it is open to public). The four I would like to see are the Ancient Karka event (without the lag obviously – we never really got to experience that), The Tower of Nightmares, The Marionette and the Breachmaker fight (and possibly, the retaking of LA, but I think that would cause technical conflicts with their map phasing system).

The next step would be to start adding complex big open world events back into the current living story – using a new raid system to keep them alive indefinitely into the future – giving us the best of both worlds (the return of intense world events without sacrificing permanence). Once the event is done in the actual living story, it disappears from the open game world and is only accessed through the guild raid interface.

To address the difficulty issue, once the raids move out of the open world, they could add difficult achievements and mechanics similar to “mote master” (where we activate a “hard mode” by interacting with a trigger at the beginning of the instance). Examples could include things like more complex bosses in the Marionette fight, the addition of traps requiring teamwork in the Tower of Nightmares, earthquakes breaking the ground apart during the Ancient Karka run, etc.

The point is, I think there is a good middle ground here that can give us deep interesting raids (with more complexity and teamwork requirements) without creating the air of exclusion and game dominating content we see in games like WoW or Wildstar.

Again, I have deeper thoughts on this, but will save those for the actual CDI.

Im saving the bulk of what I would like to see for the actual CDI, but I wanted to respond here regarding what people are saying about the definition of a raid – and to briefly mention what I dont want to see in raids in GW2.

I raided hardcore in WoW (4-7 nights a week leading both 10 and 25 player groups in progression level content) for close to six years. I know how most MMOs define raids.

That doesn’t mean that has to be the definition in GW2. What I want is a fun experience for groups larger than 10 players that encourages teamwork and communication. Yes, I want some more complicated mechanics, but not to the point of being overly exclusionary. The idea of a small percentage of players enjoying for a few months before everyone else really can is toxic to a community and really goes against what GW2 is.

The things I do not want to see:

- I dont want raiding to become the primary end game of GW2. It should be another fun activity, such as guild missions, living story, minidungeons, etc, that guilds (or any group) can tackle together. It should be part of the endgame picture without taking over the way it has in other MMOs.

- I definitely dont want set number requirements (10, 20 man raids) that mean groups have to leave people out. That is the #1 reason I stopped leading raids in WoW (main reason I left actually). IMO, raids have to scale to fit the group size.

- I dont want large group content designed, difficulty wise, for top performers. It causes raiding to become exclusionary and creates the elitist atmospheres you see in other games. I think “hardcore” content should be primarily designed at the 1 person (improve on the Liadri model as a base) and 5 person (improve on Aetherblade Retreat as a base) levels. Raiding should be designed with players at all skill levels in mind.

Regarding instancing, I will go into more detail about my thoughts in the CDI, but I think, with the current map instancing system they have (and can control, ala keeping guilds together during missions), I think they can/should do both – simply create an interface (similar to the custom pvp interface) that gives the guild leader (or player, if they can figure out the right prereqs) the ability to make a particular map guild only or open to the public (and potentially uses permissions/invite functionality we see at the bottom of the custom spvp interface). Then, again similar to the custom pvp system, members open their own interface and join the map (or use the right click “join friend in” system) to get on the map.

A little about what I do want to see:

Again, I will go into more detail in the CDI, but my vision of raiding in GW2 is really just large group organized fun. I see that being something like the Marionette, a modified Tower of Nightmares, the Breachmaker or even the Ancient Karka (the first GW2 LS event – just without the lag) as a guild activity (again, with the leader designating either a public or guild only version of the map/instance). I think a well thought out raid system is how they can incorporate large scale world activities (like those I mention above) back into the living world release model – and then keep them alive afterwards. Note that I do believe these should be scaled down to groups starting at 10 and then scaling up to 150.

Most importantly, I realize this is my opinion and that it differs from others. When this conversation begins in earnest during the CDI, it is important we all remember and respect that, regardless of what you feel raiding should be.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Good Evening,

A couple of things.

1: The next phase of the CDI will be delayed until this weekend or Monday due lack of available time on my part.
2: whilst I am very much looking forward to the raid discussion and chatting with you all about it I do want to make it clear that this last CDI has been excellent, with maturity and collaboration throughout. So to be clear unnecessary comments about ‘True Gamers’, ‘Elitists’ and ‘Dress Up Players’ won’t be tolerated.

I just want to make this clear so we can all have a healthy discussion and design out a Raid System proposal that is born out of GW2’s core mechanics, personality and community passion.

Looking forward to having a great discussion with you all.

Chris

Im ready. Have my initial thoughts already typed up and poised to post. Been waiting for this conversation for a while, and I love the direction you’re taking this (elitist hate is a plague on true raiding fans and should be stomped out/put down at every opportunity).

And have no problems with delays getting started. Just means you’re busy working on making/keeping us happy in other areas of the game.

the regular forum complainers will continue to yell and scream no matter what, but know there are those of us out here who find yesterday’s announcement to revert the change to be great news and, even if it was partly motivated by bad publicity, to be a class move that shows you do listen to customers.

GW2 will always have its detractors and mindless ragebots, but – from my perspective – I have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) my time in the game immensely. Keep up the good work.

While there is a lot of hyperbole and hate in this thread, it is nice to see that alot of people responding are doing so in a civil manner.

Threads like this are extremely important and its important for players to remember that level headed discourse is more productive and likely to be read than hate and vitriol.

Hopefully, Anet will see that as opportunity to prove they really listen to players and either revert or, better yet, keep the current system, but put in a button that allows us to use the older, much more flexible gem acquisition system (which would address the issue of player confusion, but still allow us to access the greater functionality afforded by the old method).

And again, it is good to see so many keeping things civil and level headed. Let’s keep this thread alive and make sure the devs know this is something pretty much everyone that uses the gem store cares about.

This change makes it harder to buy gems with gold (and vice versa), which was a core selling point/tenet of the game at launch. Quality of life change means making it easier for players to do simple tasks – not harder.

It is a bad change and needs to be reverted.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

The Adopt-a-Dev program is a voluntary program. The developers who participate do so in their own free time and they choose from the guilds who apply to the program. If you want to see more developers participating in the lower tiers, then encourage more of the lower-tiered guilds to apply.

The adopt a dev program seems like a good thing and its nice to see developers get out into the community.

The bigger issue, however, comes when you tout the program as a development tool or aid. If that is the intent, then effort should be made to make sure you’re getting a full and fair picture of WvW – not just the situations on the higher tier servers.

So, if the intent is just to get devs out into the community and mingling, that’s fine. If it is to help gather information about WvW, then I think you have to be mindful to ensure youre not focusing on one or two servers more than any others.

Hopefully, more devs will decide to look at the lower tiers next time (and I know that there are several lower tier server guilds that applied and weren’t chosen this past time around). That said, if the majority of developers are interested in playing on only the top tier servers, then that alone is indicative of the population issues we on the lower tiers are very much aware of.

Definitely excited and ready for the festivities to start.

ArenaNet definitely knows how to do holidays right.

I just saw the Season Two Second Half announcement, and it worries me a little (and Im a huge fan/proponent of this game).

It is starting to look more and more like Season Two will just be the new maps and the single player instances.

Comparing the 20 episodes of Season 1 (per Anet’s Web site) against the, most likely, eight or so episodes of season two (assuming we are mid way through), there are a lot of things missing, most notably -

- Small Scale Dungeons (Canach, Molten Facilities, Aetherblade Retreat, Toxic Hybrid, Scarlett’s Playhouse)
- New Dungeon Path (Twilight Assault)
- Large scale world events (Tower of Nightmares/Scarlett’s Invasions Across Maps/Marionette/Escape from LA/Recapturing LA)
- New Massive World Bosses (upgraded Tequatl and Triple Threat)
- Minigames
- Fractals
- Guild Missions

I really like the new single player instances, but they dont achieve what we have come to expect from the game.

If the second half of season two plays out similar to the first, I will play (and probably enjoy) the content for a short time, but I will be extremely disappointed.

Season One saw some truly epic and world changing events. Season two feels really bland so far in comparison. I may be surprised by the second half, but I do worry the game is taking a direction that downplays epic changes just because a few people on the forums worried about the permanence of season 1.

Here is where I see the disconnect.

The direction of the game has obviously changed in the past 6-8 months. The living story moved from the temporary open world model to a more permanent, but primarily instanced, one. At this point, I think its safe to say that many of the things that were part of S1 will not be part of S2. Dungeons/ 5-man content/minigames/etc seem to no longer be part of the living story model.

Just as significantly, they seem to have moved from a twice a month to a much longer interval release schedule.

It also seems that a few plans were either significantly postponed or scrapped entirely. In early 2013, they talked about the unlocking of new traits and skills being the centerpiece of character progression, which we have yet to see implemented (more than a year later). Did they change their mind about this? Is it still planned? If not, what is the core philosophy behind character progression? I dont think its unfair of us to wonder about this a year after the discussion. Same with precursor acquisition outside of the trading post and the proposed revamp to dungeons.

These major shifts came with very little discussion or explanation from the developers. This left alot of players wondering “what will the game play like 3/6/12 months from now?” (something we werent asking ourselves in S1).

The only reason we are asking about these things is, quite simply, because ArenaNet started the conversations and, then, seemed to go dark – both in terms of game releases and in discussions with players.

I think ArenaNet could alleviate alot of the criticism and concern by doing two things as openly and honestly as possible -

1. Give us an update on the 2013 thread (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/looking-ahead-guild-wars-2-in-2013/), even if its as simple as “yes, were still planning to implement the progression model (or whatever aspect they are talking about), but it is taking longer than expected,” or “we decided to go a different route because we couldn’t make that model fit with our plans for the game.” It’s as simple as that.

2. Talk just a little bit – big picture – about how they want the game to play and grow in the foreseeable future in terms of living story, dungeons, sPvP and WvW. I realize this one is a little harder, but silence breeds assumptions – and usually not positive assumptions. At this point, anything you say is going to be better than the continued silence on particular topics.

Encouraging transfers and merging servers would be a band aid fix – regardless of the servers you merged or pushed to make transfers.

Ive been on the same server since launch. It isnt a gold tier server (even though it was top tier at points in the past). Ive seen it rise and fall in the ranks.

I dont stay on the server because “it plays differently” than T1 servers. I dont stay because we have won matches in the past (even though weve been losing lately).

I stay for one reason – and that reason is the reason the vast majority stay on their servers – I HAVE FRIENDS HERE.

It’s that simple.

I want a better wvw experience – one that is more competitive and even – but I dont want it if it means not playing alongside the wonderful friends Ive made here. And, I would like to keep our identity as a server community.

For me, the only real solution is the battlegroups idea that has been floated multiple times. There really is no downside. It doesnt force people to play together. It allows people to continue to play with their friends. It evens out the populations. It removes queues from larger servers. It ensure people can find fights (and probably find quiet maps, if that’s their thing).

On paper, it really looks like it would solve virtually every current problem with WvW.

And to repeat – most of the people I know on the lower level servers want the same WvW experience that people on the top tier servers want. Saying otherwise is misleading. What we want is to stay with our friends and retain the communities we have worked so hard to build – while still having a fun and equitable experience (compared to every other server) in WvW.

I love the Aetherpath dungeon. I run it as often as I can get a group. To me, it feels like what most dungeons should.

It has one major flaw, imo, though. It’s too long given the punishing/unforgiving nature of the fights. Five players who have never done it can spend hours getting to the clockheart to give up in frustration on the last fight.

That said, the Clockheart, Sparki/Slick and Ship Captain are three of the best designed fights in the game. If they were in stand alone 5 player story instances, they would be very popular and fun encounters. A group could spend time focusing on one fun fight instead of grinding through the dungeon to get to them.

How does this pertain to this topic? See my post above about wanting smaller 5 man instances more often. If the living story releases included just one 5 player instance with fights ranging in difficulty between the Tower of Nightmare endboss and the Clockheart, they would be extremely popular, even without a reward of any kind (but there should be a reward – on par with the bags we get from the current living story content ).

And, at the end of the season, that same work would make for a great addition to fractals.

Paladin.1279:

I think they should close the six lowest population servers and have them free transfer to servers 7-18 and then you have three tiers with six worlds each. “Community” will stay the same because megaserver killed off PvE “community” already and since the closing servers can all transfer to same new server they will maintain their “WvW” community. Nuff said.

If this approach were to be considered, I think that, instead of closing the lowest six, it would be easier (and more impactful/useful) to close the top three (more potential servers to choose from; no “full” servers remaining). That would go much further toward spreading out the wvw population.

That said, I think closing any server is a very bad idea. The battlegroup idea fixes the problem nicely without breaking apart communities (and yes, communities do exist on the lower tier servers -very tight communities because most arent based around transfers onto the server; theyve been there together since launch).

There is plenty of room on many servers for your friend, you and your guild. Upping the cap right now would just make a bad situation worse.

And I would be interested to hear ArenaNet’s response/definition of the phrase “important server.”

If ArenaNet needs evidence that adding recount support would be a bad idea, they need look no further than this thread.

Even talking about recount causes arguments, strife and hate. It would only be worse if it were in game.

Closing servers doesnt work for a number of reasons, the biggest being that it would break apart established communities (even on small servers) and potentially split guilds apart.

Also (and again, its a bad idea), but if they did close servers and we were shooting for 18 servers (or even 12), it would make more sense to close the top few rather than the bottom few. That way you would actually spread the population out better – closing the bottom populated servers would have virtually no impact (but, again, that isnt the way they should handle this – server battlegroups are the way to go).

The video that TeamBattleAxe linked regarding battlegroups seems to be the most popular option. It wouldnt require breaking servers apart, it would retain server identity/pride, it would (most likely) completely eliminate queues and it would (most likely) ensure players could find engaging combat in WvW 24/7. To top it off, it really seems like it would be simple to implement (using the existing guesting mechanics). The only real change would have to be to how the score is shown.

Most importantly, it would set Guild Wars 2 up for the future in WvW the same way megaservers did in PVE. Lulls in player populations (or booms for that matter) would have almost no impact on WvW game play (with that many options, players could easily find engaging gameplay in WvW at 1/10th or 10 times the numbers we have there now).

I think many of us (especially those not in T1) would love to see that model in place prior to any future WvW seasons.

NOTE: Another advantage I thought of after posting – it would make server selection for new players a non-issue/easier process (something that most MMOs really cant achieve – it would set the GW2 NPE apart from others). The only reason a player would ever have for needing to transfer servers would be if they found a guild in PVE they loved playing with and wanted to make sure they were always in the same WvW battlegroup.

It’s still worth talking and expressing opinions about it. The people who are going to take things out of context and get mad when their vision doesn’t come true are going to get mad about something regardless. It’s just the nature of that type of forum goer.

I agree that, if raiding is implemented, it will most likely be associated with guilds or guild missions (which I would be very much in favor of), but I also think open world bosses, dedicated zones (like Dry Top) and other things would work as “raids” as well and are worth discussing.

My biggest worry is that developers are so scared of people getting upset following speculative discussions that they simply don’t have those discussions to avoid the trouble. I say, let’s have the discussions and not worry about that. Again, those people will just find something else to be upset about anyway.

I actually think the opposite needs to happen ASAP. Transfers to gold league servers should be locked until a better balance is reached, and free transfers should be offered for guilds wanting to move to silver and bronze from those servers – until they come up with a better solution for the population imbalance problem (and there are alot of good suggestions in another thread related to that topic).

That way your guild can join you on your server and work toward making WvW more competitive (again, until a real solution is implemented) – rather than just a competition to see who has the most people and after hours coverage.

This is a long standing issue that is apparently caused by technical issues related to server performance.

That said, I would like to see condition builds made more viable. I don’t like that 5 zerkers is viable but 5 condis is not.

One issue that will come up though, is that bosses (and pretty much everything else) already die too fast in the game. If they make this change (and they should), they will need to either beef bosses (and regular mobs) up or tone down damage across the board. Legendary enemies with the power to instill fear across Tyria shouldnt be killable in 30 seconds (with any build or party makeup).

To the issue of condition damage – they need to go the route most other MMOs take – condition stacking needs to be individual to the players, not the targets (each necro could put up to 8 bleed stacks on the target for example). Unfortunately, this would require a TON of balance work and skill redos (not to mention the issue of server performance).

It still needs to be addressed though. Condition builds (and support builds) should be more viable in the game than they are now.

I hate seeing any of the original GW2 team depart. They have built a game that I truly love and that has had a positive impact on my life.

I wish him the best in his next chapter.

Nabrok.9023:

Blaeys.3102:

Nabrok.9023:

Straegen.2938:

The score is a symptom of the larger population/coverage issue. Treating the symptom will not fix anything.

Do not get target locked on balancing the score when reasonably fair fights is what is important. Some previously suggested “fixes” to this include:

• Guild Alliance matches that are aligned weekly rather than Server v Server
• Allow some guilds to be unaffiliated with servers and assign them to servers that need them each week
• Create a limited amount of free transfers to specific servers each week to help balance out populations

While I agree that fixing imbalance issues will have a profound effect on scoring, we’ve already had that discussion.

I dont think we can have the conversation in a vacuum.

Especially when so many of us believe that any scoring change will be most likely be a bandaid until they can address the real problem of lopsided servers/population imbalances.

The proposed idea (which I loved a year ago when it was first proposed) would – most likely – fix it all – without disrupting server communities or in any way and let them focus on other ways to make WvW fun for everyone without having to get creative with scoring or lopsided buffs (which other games have tried and failed with – if anyone remembers WoW’s Wintergrasp “solutions” to a similar issue years ago) .

Personally I’m a big fan of the original proposal from John(?) of creating new worlds populated with alliances to form balanced populations.

Anyway, we’ve already had that discussion, I feel that this discussion should proceed under the assumption that some of the things discussed there are implemented and should be about how we would like scoring to work in a population balanced environment. If your answer to that is “The current scoring will work great with balanced populations!” then that is a valid answer.

I think the other side is saying (legitimately so) that fixing the population issues will alleviate many of the scoring issues.

That’s not saying that there arent some good ideas to improve scoring, just that they need to deal with both the disease and the symptoms – and if we get too far down the symptom road (scoring), we will lose sight of dealing with the disease (population imbalances) itself. They can change scoring all they want, but until the underlying problem of lopsided populations is addressed head on, the situation will just continue to deteriorate.

Nabrok.9023:

Straegen.2938:

The score is a symptom of the larger population/coverage issue. Treating the symptom will not fix anything.

Do not get target locked on balancing the score when reasonably fair fights is what is important. Some previously suggested “fixes” to this include:

• Guild Alliance matches that are aligned weekly rather than Server v Server
• Allow some guilds to be unaffiliated with servers and assign them to servers that need them each week
• Create a limited amount of free transfers to specific servers each week to help balance out populations

While I agree that fixing imbalance issues will have a profound effect on scoring, we’ve already had that discussion.

I dont think we can have the conversation in a vacuum.

Especially when so many of us believe that any scoring change will be most likely be a bandaid until they can address the real problem of lopsided servers/population imbalances.

The proposed idea (which I loved a year ago when it was first proposed) would – most likely – fix it all – without disrupting server communities or in any way and let them focus on other ways to make WvW fun for everyone without having to get creative with scoring or lopsided buffs (which other games have tried and failed with – if anyone remembers WoW’s Wintergrasp “solutions” to a similar issue years ago) .

I know it sounds like a non-answer, but Im serious – at level 80, you just sit back and enjoy the game. There is quite a bit to do outside of WvW, including the living story, pvp, dungeons, fractals, open world PVE (temples, events, Jumping Puzzles, etc), guild missions, etc.

What you have to be wary of is falling into the “I have to progress” trap. Gear level is pretty much a non issue at 80. You get exotics really fast and, if you really want them, you can grind out crafting for ascended (exotic is more than good enough for all content outside of high level fractals, though).

At max level, there is no character progression whatsoever in GW2 outside of continually changing the way your character looks (which can be fun). Once that sinks in (and it takes time if youre used to other MMOs), endgame in GW2 makes more sense.

To your question about how long, you can usually get fully decked out in exotics in a day or two. Getting full ascended is time gated, so that takes a little longer (few weeks), but, again, be wary of thinking of that as end game progression. It really isnt.

MakubeC.3026:

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

Dude…This is like real good.

• We don’t lose server pride.
• We are still merged.
• Loving the idea of assisting other matchs on different tiers.
• Reducing queues.

Attention to this man.

Can we discuss this?

This is what needs to happen. Simple. Elegant. Fixes pretty much every issue on every server. Additionally, it would “time proof” the game against population fluctuation, bandwagoning and simple player attrition/resurgences.

I really wish Anet would do this. WvW would be fun again for those of us on servers other than Blackgate or in T1.

To be clear before I make my recommendation – the problem is lopsided populations. Until that is fixed (even if it means alliances/battlegroups or, god forbid, mergers/splitting servers), there is nothing that will make WvW the same enjoyment level on every server (which should be Anet’s only real goal). If that isnt fixed, WvW will continue to feel like it is designed around the Blackgate style servers, while the rest of us just have to live with it. People can deny it until the end of time, but there it is.

In the meantime, some small changes could make a difference:

- Scoring is directly proportionate to the size of the groups across all the maps at any given second. For example, if Server A has 20% more people than Server B, then Server B gains points 20% faster for any objectives captured in that time. To avoid exploits, this buff can only be gained by a team that is currently in last place (eg, if the score evens out, the buff doesnt apply).

- Defenses are directly related to score. If a team outscores the others by more than 50,000 points, then no defense upgrades (walls, doors, cannons, etc) can be used. If they outscore by more than 100,000, then all walls and doors disappear.

- Outnumbered servers (based on average wvw population from the month prior) get MUCH better rewards for taking objectives while the top population servers get severely nerfed rewards (possibly even no rewards from keep lords, other players, etc). It may seem unfair, but something big is needed to get people to stop bandwagonning.

- Outnumbered servers (again, based on average wvw population from the month prior) gain access to siege equipment others do not (Char tanks, Asura megalasers).

Once again, I STRONGLY believe the problem needs to be addressed where the problem resides – with WvW population numbers – but, until Anet makes that determination themselves (and they eventually will have to), they need to make one of the bandaid fixes above.

The game is as good as its ever been.

Biggest issue is that we are in a down time between content releases – which is causing a lot of people to take a little break from the game right now. After 2 years of constant monthly (at least) updates, they seem to have slowed to approximately quarterly. Personally, I think this will change once they catch their stride with the new model they seem to be using, but only time will tell.

Despite that, the game is still very fun and worth logging in to. While there may be nothing new to do right now, the core game is still there.

While there is some novelty to the idea of open world guild halls, I think – from a practical perspective – that the limits it would place on potential design, flexibility (particularly the ability to link with other guilds for GvG) and expansion potential make instanced halls the logical choice.

As the leader of a 300+ person active guild, I would also be against the idea of heavily themed guild halls (airships, caves, etc) because it could easily feel out of place in a diverse guild (an asura wouldnt want to be in a tree, for instance). I would rather see the guild hall be a well designed standard model (with some aesthetic options) – and save things like airships/trees/etc for player housing options down the road.

As far as “rooms” in the guild hall, I would be interested in seeing areas dedicated to the following:

- A general meeting area
- GvG
- Guild Mission Control Room (with possible missions INSIDE the guild hall)
- Guild Mini Game Room – with access to existing minigames (as a guild) and other activities (really love the orchestra idea someone had above – would also like to see a “bar” with a group belcher’s bluff type activity, etc)
- Guild PvP area (guild version of the custom arena)
- Portals to “living quarters” (player specific housing areas for members)

I know it sounds strange, but I would rather not see the crafting vendors or other NPCs in the guild hall. These should be used to populate the cities the way they are now. In my opinion, the guild hall should be about guild activities (the items listed above) – the obvious exceptions being the current guild vendors.

JonPeters.5630:

Donari.5237:

On scaling of costs:

How do we keep it fair given that guilds change size? As Conski asks, would this system encourage people to make a small guild, create a huge hall, then invite in all the other members waiting?

I don’t want to limit small guilds, but with scaling it might be vital to have a hall size limit based on membership, so when you get more people in, you can build more space but at the increased costs. (And then we worry about inactive members bloating costs just as afkers scale up events). Contrariwise, guilds that downscale should not have their large space demolished. Remember my adamant stance against decay, here!

I think one solution to the scaling problems is to create different aspects that work on different scales. For example some aspects can be time gated and therefore don’t favor any size guild. Some can be based on straight up farming which favor larger guilds, and some could be driven by activity and favor guilds with active members. Think of it like the 3 branches of government, and the aspects within that. The senate favors states, the house favors population (or gerrymandering at least ), etc…

I think in that way the question that comes to mind is what parts of Guild Halls would you want to have work in what different ways so that we can reward big guilds for those areas but not punish small guilds for the things they really want…

Jon

Tier upgrades should take both small and large guilds into account. Nothing should be locked behind huge influence walls, but there is nothing wrong with tiering different levels of each category. The best example of this would be something like guild bounties – with each tier catered to the needs/challenge based on guild size.

Relating this to guild halls gets a little more complicated. First, all aesthetic and functional choices have to be available to all. Spending more influence should simply be about scope. So, as an example – for a minimal cost, you can create a banquet room. At tier one, the room is small and includes a guild banquet table (applying some kind of buff) with 25 charges. At tier two, the room is a little bigger and the banquet “feeds” 100 (and so on up to feeding 500).

No guilds are left out, but there is a benefit for larger guilds (who have the spare influence) to upgrade to higher tiers – a benefit smaller guilds would care nothing about.

The biggest issue with making things too cheap is that, if you make the initial cost too low, then everyone will just start forming one person guilds to build personal guild halls. That invalidates the value of the work actual guilds do and the idea of halls being places for guilds to meet. This can be dealt with by making the initial cost include guild merits (so something like 50,000 influence+250 merits). Once that initial investment is made, upgrades should be fairly cheap for all sizes of halls (with more expensive upgrades related solely to scope like the example above).

Gaile Gray.6029:

Labjax.2465:

I think the point of her doing that was to make sure those who haven’t been following the thread closely know that there is some dev interaction/acknowledgement on the subject.

Yes!

Blaeys.3102:

Gaile’s comment makes it sound like the idea all along was that horizontal progression applied to those leveling – rather than at end game. That bothers me A LOT.

Perhaps you mean Jon’s comments? For I said nothing whatsoever about progression, horizontal or otherwise. Just want to make sure you didn’t read something into my words that reference leveling, progression, or anything of that sort.

~~~

Anyway, thanks for the input added today. And I mean that, especially because I recognize some of you are irritated and would like to post like that one guy who shouted!

The reason I re-posted Jon’s comments involves some level of confession: I saw this huge thread in the forums, kept reading across many sub-forums and posts that ArenaNet was being asked to provide some sort of response, wanted to get you some info (although I knew it wouldn’t be much at this point), sent an e-mail to some devs to ask about how we could respond, then met up with Jon who pointed out that he’d put up a pretty comprehensive post … that I had completely missed.

If I missed it, maybe someone late to the thread missed it, so hence the repeat or re-post. Not to say “share your ideas” if you already have! Not to give a placating “there there” or meaningless non-update. But because I honestly felt that some forum member may have missed the update and input request from the dev team and they may want to provide new feedback.

So you guys who posted last month or two weeks ago or when the thread started? You’re good. Got it, thank you, and really, thank you again if you patiently re-posted today. To you folks who are saying “You need to update that thread,” please note that right now, the only update we have available in the one that was offered – in detail and at length – when Jon last posted. He or another team member will update when they have more info, but do know this thread was and continues to be useful.

I actually have little to no issue with the new trait system (im actually a fan) – I just noted that part of the malaise is because it is such a drastic change from what most players experienced during their leveling. If it had been in from the beginning, there would be little issue.

To my confusion regarding horizontal progression and traits, I probably did get confused about who said what and didnt mean it to sound argumentative or contrary. Im sorry if it did.

I was just pointing out that what Jon said in the blog post last year – which was reinforced in the horizontal progression CDI – did not seem to be about the current system at all – but rather about the unlocking of new traits post max level through a system that would serve as the main way our characters would develop/grow indefinitely in the game.

Little to nothing has been said about that system since then and, when I read your post, it sounded like the reason was that the changes to the leveling traits is what he was referring to all along. Going back and reading his original comments, that seems very unlikely (but, if true, very disappointing).

Again, I have no problem with the new trait system. I actually like it. My guild has weekly events where we get together to help unlock traits for new players and players with lower level alts and they are alot of fun.

ADDENDUM/Apology: It wasnt a blog by Jon, but rather by Colin Johanson that started the trait discussion/CDI as it relates to horizontal progressions (and caused my confusion). The specific paragraphs, from the July 2013 blog, are copy/pasted below:

New Skill and Traits
We’ll begin regularly adding new skills and traits to the game for each profession to expand your characters and builds! You will be able to earn these new traits and skills by unlocking them. To go along with this, we’ll expand the content and options to earn skill points to help encourage players to experience different challenges and content throughout the world. These skills and traits will be designed to be balanced with the existing skills/traits we currently have in the game, and will simply compliment and expand the range of abilities and tactics available to each profession. Both WvW and PvE players can acquire skills and traits, and additional means of earning skill points will be addressed for both core content areas.

The regular addition of skills and traits that you can earn as you play provides us an extremely stable, easily expandable reward system that fits neatly into the pillars of progression and advancement that Guild Wars 2 are all about. Your character will be able to grow and change for years to come without invalidating everything you’ve earned so far.

The problems, which I suspect alot of people sympathize with, are twofold.

First, compared to the original leveling system, it is a much more involved and lengthy process. If the system were in the game from the start, I suspect no one would have had an issue with it.

Second – and the BIG one for me – is about what we thought horizontal progression meant when Jon made the original comment in his blog. I know, I for one thought he was referring to new ways to advance my character at max level – in other words, they would be introducing new traits and utility skills on a regular enough schedule to keep us engaged as we sought out the events that unlock them (kind of like skill unlocks from GW1).

The second concept had me very excited (and I wasnt the only one – the forums lit up with alot of positive comments after that blog post) – thinking this would be part of the new end game in GW2.

Gaile’s comment makes it sound like the idea all along was that horizontal progression applied to those leveling – rather than at end game. That bothers me A LOT.

This is a perfect example of when clearer communication is desperately needed – and simple clarification could make things better. What is the plan regarding adding new traits/utilities on a regular basis (horizontal progression as part of end game)? Has that idea been scrapped or is it just not ready for prime time yet?

I dont care if its a dungeon or not – we need new 5 player challenges. In Season 1 of the LS, this was present in the form of things like Molten Facility, Aetherblade Retreat, the Scarlett instance in the Pavillion, the Canach/Golem fight cave in Southsun and the trials during the election. While none of these were permanent, they were important because they kept 5-player groups engaged.

The new living story model doesnt seem to include anything like these instances.

Personally, I would like to see them add one 5-player mini-instance alongside each biweekly release they are doing with the main living story instances in November. Make them short and challenging – and at the end of the season, pull them all together and drop them in as a new fractal. That way, we have constant new 5-player content just as were getting the single player content now.

Blanche Neige.7241:

I don’t think this alliance proposition will solve anything. I have the feeling the end result will be a situation similar to what we have now.

The best WvW guilds will form a few alliances among themselves. These stronger alliances will be able to attract/recruit the best players.

In the end, you’ll have a few very strong alliances with the best players and the best organisation, that will be able to crush the other alliances with no problems; the same way you currently have a few strong servers that are able to crush all the others easily.

That is why the players can’t be in full control. The alliances (or battlegroups) need to happen at the server level (and Anet should be the one setting the battlegroups), not the guild level (and should change week to week). That way server communities remain together (and can maintain the level of coordination they have now) but we dont have the huge disparities in numbers between matches.

I firmly believe that the solution has to be controlled by Anet, not the players. In mass, the players will always flock to the place where they believe they will win the most matches, which will continue the imbalances we have now. It has happened since the first day the game was open.

I know its not a perfect solution, but its the only one that will make the WvW experience comparable regardless of server choice. That is crucial for the future health of the game.