nia.4725

Done \o/

The answer is pretty obvious, I don't get what you're trying to prove with your question. A single person can't have 2987459825 builds for the same class, it's a matter of inventory space and economy, but that doesn't mean that build diversity is low. I don't wvw (I only do solo or duo roaming now and then), but for what I know, since they are a static group, they have defined the builds they will use. One or two per class, I think, since my raid leader created different set-ups (you know, groups have to be organised, you can't just throw whatever build in the group; they have to sinergise). So the result was that on monday, he played minstrel firebrand; on tuesday, he played celestial reaper; on wednesday, marauder holo... etc. Not stellar, but still more diverse. Raid build diversity is pretty boring. If you play DPS, you either play a full berserker build or you play a full viper build; even griever firebrand is already dead. If you play support, you either play minstrel or commander+berserker chrono or you play druid. And that's it. Only if you have an static with someone capable of creating builds you'll see some other things, like a healing firebrand or a giver chrono. But if you pug? 4 or 5 choices and nothing else. There's no flexibility in DPS builds, and there's some more in support builds but in the end, the goal is the same: have a lot of boon duration and spam boons, or heal the party. Ofc the majority of people just copy their builds. Creating real good builds is not something everyone can do, you know. It requires a deep knowledge of classes, skills and traits, and some maths. And yes, I get my builds handed by my raid leader, because (for now) I don't have the knowledge and skill needed to do them myself. I try to, and I try to learn from him. But one thing is to use a build my raid leader creates, while asking him why this trait and why this sigil and whatever and another completely different thing is to just take the build, gear the character and forget about it. It's not realistic to expect everyone to be able to create a build. Like, I've seen a very popular youtuber from my community yell "I've made a fully optimised chrono build for fracs!" and when I looked at it, god, it was everything but optimised. People think they know, but they don't.

In raids, if you have two builds, one of which offers better dps, while other offers better survival, the first is straight better, because the survival factor can be ignored. You learn to avoid the predictable mechanics, and depend on your healer for that. In WvW, you not only must include that factor, but you need to think also about other things (like mobility, disengage capability, etc). You can't include everything you might want, so you need to decide where you will invest more, and on which you'll skimp.And here is the problem - all those things are important. There's no math that will tell you what balance of those things is perfect, because their relative worth is not so clear (and even if it was, that balance point changes from moment to moment). Did you ever change class/build between raid encounters? Then remember, that in WvW you shift from encounter to encounter, without ability to be sure about what encounter will happen next. And there are no builds that are universal, and are good for all the situations. Just a side note: a good raider does change the build depending on the encounter. Usually not the stats, but the skills, the weapons and some traits. I can give you some examples based on my static builds: chrono in sloth - full regular chrono build w focus and focus trait, res trait, using domi inspi. Chrono in matthias - regular chrono with pistol, no res trait. Chrono in sabetha - minstrel chaos chronoheal, with the healing wells trait, because we don't use druids there. Druid in escort going towers - wolf as pet, double staff, breakstun, glyph of tides, strength of the pack, fury trait. Druid no towers - jungle spider and jacaranda with entangle, staff axe/wh, wh trait. The list is very, very long.

Basically, changing stats is one thing. Transferring gear between characters and changing stats on top of it is way too much of a hassle for most people to actually do that. Eeven people with legendary gear usually just get an additional (ascended) set for that. I was trying to point out that the stat choices in PVE are binary. Before I set foot into WvW I thought the majority of the stat combinations were obsolete and useless. It surprised me that Anet even offered them because I couldn't figure out who would need them. It was either Condi or Zerkers. After stepping into WvW it was an eye-opener and I find myself experimenting with different stat combinations, the problem being that I'm still working on the Legendary set in WvW so having 3 toons that I play exclusively in WvW with several different ascended gear sets (based on what I will need based on server population and what kind of build is needed at the time..) has made a mess of my inventory and bank space. Legendary Armor will be a space saver! WvW and raids are completely different. Raids are instanced content played by a maximum of 10 people, so the stat choices are very limited; you need to compress as much as possible everything the squad needs (DPS, support, etc). A celestial DPS would not deal enough damage, and if DPS started using hybrid gear (gear half supportive half damage), things like dedicated healers like druid would become a waste. But druids not only give heals, you know. Druids are necessary because of the insane amount of utility and damage buffs they give, and that will never be covered by any hybrid or self-sufficient build. Same with chronos. I agree that it's sad that the build diversity in raids is so little, I really really do. Aw, come on. Raid meta is twice as diverse as the WvW one. 95% of everything you'll find in a WvW squad is Scourge, Firebrand and Spellbreaker. But WvW is not just zerging, you know. Roaming builds are much more diverse. And raid builds aren't diverse, you can't just come up with something completely unique and get it to be usefull. It's either a heal build, a boon build, a condi build or a condi build. Shhh. You are making sense, now. Of course wvw has much more variety on builds than raids do. But people will go to any length to defend their argument, no matter how absurd Sorry but are you seriously comparing meta best in slot raid builds with just any wvw build which might work? Even more against weak pve players trying to catch the zerg? WvW top end builds are way less diverse than people make them out to be here. If we are to take all decent or "that works too" raid builds which are not posted on snowcrows or similar sites the variety of builds increases for raids as well. The amount of uniqueness in wvw builds comes from the diversity in opponents and their varying skill level. That's not to say you can't stick to one of the best in slot builde and trash any one you meet. Even worse one of the flavor classes. Go run a proper trailblazer/viper Mirage and see how many unique builds will outplay you. That's not build diversity. That's opponent diversity skill level. I'll give you that wvw does make vitality and toughness actually useful thus adding variety. But that is basically as far as it goes. The amount of overpowered stat combos or used stats in wvw is barely higher than raids. Celestial, berseker, trailblazer and maybe some viper/minstrel or harrier splashing. If you really think that wvw build variety can be compared to raid build variety (or even fractal build variety), maybe you only play metabattle wvw builds. Personally, I use 5-6 nec builds, 4ele builds, 3-4 guard builds (cant wait to test plaguedoctor), 3 reve builds, and the list goes on. I think raiders use waaaay less builds. And, yes, those builds i mentioned are viable. Yeah same. I don't NEED metabattle to dictate it and my guild is constantly testing out different builds that work. When we're zerging we optimize towards what we're planning to do. More often then not we're running Havoc so our builds involve a mix. In fact quite a few of us DON'T talk about our builds outside of Guild because for us it's kinda fun to surprise people. But yeah exactly. Which is no proof that those builds are unique and optimized. All that is proof of is that they performed and got the job done. That's not optimization. You are comparing okay builds to highly optimized raid builds. I already conceded that vitality and toughness make wvw builds more interesting and diverse based on the stats you add. The mere fact that efficiency of certain stat combinations versus others (4-stat items give aproximately 10% more total stats) is higher already makes a huge amount of stat combination useless. Yes, not all 4-stat combinations are in game yet which does make some 3-stat combination useful. But beside that it's mostly shuffle between most 4-stat combination and celestial. That's not even getting into zerging which requires litreally no build if you can position properly. You are literally comparing your mediocre and good builds to best in slot maximized performance raid builds. Just as I said.My raid leader is very experienced in creating builds. He has every aspect of any build completely studied and makes sure they are always completely optimised (he even has a table with the % of stats gained between 3-stat and 4-stat gear, depending on the piece of gear). He creates our raid builds. And he also created my previous guild wvw builds, both for zerging and roaming. My celestial condi druid and berserker warrior, marauder holosmith, power marauder chrono, trailblazer mirage, marauder weaver, minstrel firebrand, cele herald.. Before anet killed his favorite build, he played a full commander warrior build and he completely slayed with it. So no. You're generalizing something you actually don't know. I'm sure some people just pick whatever, but I've seen my pve raid leader create full optimised and minmaxed builds for both raids and zerging+roaming. And those for wvw are far more diverse than those that we use in my static, even considering the fact that my static build diversity is bigger than snowcrows' meta.

This thread was so beautiful when it was silent, why do we have to revive it again : ( xDD

Basically, changing stats is one thing. Transferring gear between characters and changing stats on top of it is way too much of a hassle for most people to actually do that. Eeven people with legendary gear usually just get an additional (ascended) set for that. I was trying to point out that the stat choices in PVE are binary. Before I set foot into WvW I thought the majority of the stat combinations were obsolete and useless. It surprised me that Anet even offered them because I couldn't figure out who would need them. It was either Condi or Zerkers. After stepping into WvW it was an eye-opener and I find myself experimenting with different stat combinations, the problem being that I'm still working on the Legendary set in WvW so having 3 toons that I play exclusively in WvW with several different ascended gear sets (based on what I will need based on server population and what kind of build is needed at the time..) has made a mess of my inventory and bank space. Legendary Armor will be a space saver! WvW and raids are completely different. Raids are instanced content played by a maximum of 10 people, so the stat choices are very limited; you need to compress as much as possible everything the squad needs (DPS, support, etc). A celestial DPS would not deal enough damage, and if DPS started using hybrid gear (gear half supportive half damage), things like dedicated healers like druid would become a waste. But druids not only give heals, you know. Druids are necessary because of the insane amount of utility and damage buffs they give, and that will never be covered by any hybrid or self-sufficient build. Same with chronos. I agree that it's sad that the build diversity in raids is so little, I really really do. Aw, come on. Raid meta is twice as diverse as the WvW one. 95% of everything you'll find in a WvW squad is Scourge, Firebrand and Spellbreaker.But WvW is not just zerging, you know. Roaming builds are much more diverse. And raid builds aren't diverse, you can't just come up with something completely unique and get it to be usefull. It's either a heal build, a boon build, a condi build or a condi build.

I do it every week, like, I'm killing bosses I've already killed all the damn week xDDDDD

Basically, changing stats is one thing. Transferring gear between characters and changing stats on top of it is way too much of a hassle for most people to actually do that. Eeven people with legendary gear usually just get an additional (ascended) set for that. I was trying to point out that the stat choices in PVE are binary. Before I set foot into WvW I thought the majority of the stat combinations were obsolete and useless. It surprised me that Anet even offered them because I couldn't figure out who would need them. It was either Condi or Zerkers. After stepping into WvW it was an eye-opener and I find myself experimenting with different stat combinations, the problem being that I'm still working on the Legendary set in WvW so having 3 toons that I play exclusively in WvW with several different ascended gear sets (based on what I will need based on server population and what kind of build is needed at the time..) has made a mess of my inventory and bank space. Legendary Armor will be a space saver!WvW and raids are completely different. Raids are instanced content played by a maximum of 10 people, so the stat choices are very limited; you need to compress as much as possible everything the squad needs (DPS, support, etc). A celestial DPS would not deal enough damage, and if DPS started using hybrid gear (gear half supportive half damage), things like dedicated healers like druid would become a waste. But druids not only give heals, you know. Druids are necessary because of the insane amount of utility and damage buffs they give, and that will never be covered by any hybrid or self-sufficient build. Same with chronos. I agree that it's sad that the build diversity in raids is so little, I really really do. But hybrid builds or builds like PVT are just a waste and don't bring anything useful to anyone. The only hybrid builds you'll see is, sometimes, condi or power druids (very niche and only used by very experienced groups that don't need a full healing druid, and in low-pressure bosses) or even off-meta builds that few people know like harrier chrono. When you think about raid builds, you need to think about the needs of the team (you need 25 might, fury, bla bla bla) and who can provide that. You'll make the composition having in mind who will provide every needed thing. It's a group effort, since classes are too unique in what they can bring to the party, specially when we look at support builds. About the legendary armor, I agree with many ppl here. It's a space saver, yes... but not so much. 6 slots for armor + 1 slot for each set of runes you'll need. That's a lot. But that's not the main problem about legen armor, the real problem is how incredibly tedious would be to swap stats and equip runes. I'd finish faster just by right-clicking the equipment slot and selecting the other piece of armor or trinket I need. That's what I do, although I have enough LIs to craft 3 and a half legendary armors. For me, it's just a new ascended set for each build and a character per build, if I use those builds often enough. Right now I have 3 guardians, 2 druids (one of them has a celestial set for WvW and a viper one for raids), 3 mesmers (minstrel/commander/viper mirage), 2 warriors (power/condi), 1 revenant (with heal/condi/power builds), 2 eles (heal/power), 1 necro (celestial/condi), 1 thief (power), 1 engi (power). Would a legen solve my space problem? Maybe. But it would trade me a space problem for a time problem. I'd rather use ArcDPS build templates, it's so comfortable and fast to change builds if you use that.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well. Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing. ye making raids 5 manable addresses 0 issues. The issue is the content gap, i.e: wvw available for casual to hard core - yesDoes 5 man instances have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does pvp have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does open world have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes. Does raids (>=8 players say) have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - not yet in GW2, available everywhere else. Which leads me to a different point, what if Anet introduced easier 8 MAN raids, and kept 10 man as it is? now there's a way to get a win win here. That's false. pvp has not content tailored to all players. all players get mixed until skill level gets its way through mmr rating and the best players get higher ranks. but still high ranks get mixed with lower ranks, being that a source of big frustrations, sided matches and great toxicity open world has not content tailored for all players. there's no ow challenging enough for hardcore players. raids are The Hardcore Part of PvE. so many years and so many pages and you still don't get this. your wrong, pvp does have content for all players including hardcore, its called ranked, your confusing balance with accessibility. And hardcore players have access to open world content, the challenge is there if they want it. and yet again you are wrong, TUNED raiding is for hardcore players, raids are also tuned for non hardcore players - this is not wow.ranked is the same content as unranked, the only difference is the level of expectations and rewards, but the content is exactly the same. so no you can't say that ranked is content for hardcores and unranked for casuals wth. yeah you can say that hardcores are competitive and so they play ranked but ranked right now is a lot more about rewards than the leaderboards. ranked is played by all types of players, not only hardcores. xd open world content has no challenge. are you going to say that hot metas are challenging? open world bosses? shadow behemoth? what part of ow is challenging and suited for hardcore players, in your opinion? because you're saying that there is, but you're not giving any example of that. i have yet to find any ow content that is challenging enough for me, and i'm far from being a hardcore raider. still, ow is numb and boring af for me. raids are for hardcore players, it's really incredible that after all this time you still haven't understood all those anet statements about the purpose of raids. you can argue that raids should be aimed for a wider range of players, you could argue that raids should not be only hardcore content and that's fine, but not this. like really. that's completely different from accessibility of course, are you now going to say that recurrent lie that casuals do not have access to raids?

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well. Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing. ye making raids 5 manable addresses 0 issues. The issue is the content gap, i.e: wvw available for casual to hard core - yesDoes 5 man instances have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does pvp have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes.Does open world have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - yes. Does raids (>=8 players say) have content tailored for all players, casual to hardcore - not yet in GW2, available everywhere else. Which leads me to a different point, what if Anet introduced easier 8 MAN raids, and kept 10 man as it is? now there's a way to get a win win here.That's false. pvp has not content tailored to all players. all players get mixed until skill level gets its way through mmr rating and the best players get higher ranks. but still high ranks get mixed with lower ranks, being that a source of big frustrations, sided matches and great toxicity open world has not content tailored for all players. there's no ow challenging enough for hardcore players. raids are The Hardcore Part of PvE. so many years and so many pages and you still don't get this.

Right, like I said, at this point I'm not advocating for a change in this direction, I'm just exploring the philosophy of the thing. As you noted, when some people die, it can steamroll to all people dying, because the encounter is designed to have a certain number of active players. My point is, the same could be achieved using RNG, if you're "playing well" on a team where everyone else is dying left and right until only you are left, mechanically that's no different than you playing it well but then getting hit with unavoidable damage debuffs, basically. ;) If the goal is to avoid stacking up too many mechanics, the same can be applied by them just randomly dropping damage fields in certain portions of the terrain. If they wanted it to be relatively easy, then the placement would be "fair." If they wanted it to be hard, reflecting the performance of a "bad party," then the placement would be hard to avoid. Did you read my reply to Cyninja above? Basically I think any boss encounter could be rearranged so that the things the solo player would do would be comparable to all the tasks that a single member of a party would have to do. Obviously many raid encounters are designed so that a single player can't do all the things at once, but at any given time, each person in a raid squad is only doing one series of tasks and responsibilities, and you could juggle the mechanics of the fight to present a single player with that selection of tasks, and all other tasks just sort of handle themselves. Well, unless I miss my mark on this guess, couldn't you replicate that effect by having "shrines" or whatever on the map, and they are periodically "threatened," and if you fail to "save" that shrine within a time limit, then it is "destroyed," which drops your DPS potential by 1/10th? Wouldn't that have roughly the same impact, and require roughly the same player response? If the current mechanic forces you to choose between having the options to deal enough CC or the option to deal enough damage, the solo version would either have a lower CC curve or lower DPS requirements, forcing you to either play as a current team's "CC player," or as a current team's "dps player" or as a balance of the two. Agreed, but my point is just that a rework would be possible that would have the same individual player responsibilities, but without the other players. Read the post above for a little more detail on that. I read the post, Ohoni. I'm just answering to this "It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right?" And the answer is NO. A complete rework is not "just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strenghts of certain abilities", it would require much more work, not just tweaking here and there. About the shrines thing, I think maybe you don't know how DPS works in raids. Most people will do whatever deals most damage, to the point of skipping mechanics if that allows the party to deal more DPS. The thing goes like this: A mechanic appearsInstead of doing the mechanic, the group ignores it and just keeps DPSingThat DPS increase derived from not having to move from the boss makes the boss phaseThe mechanic from 1 gets canceled thanks to that extra DPSThis is a common tactic in raids. An example is Xera. Very often, the first 50% of the boss is done in the mid. No one moves, everyone ignores the red orbs because, if you DPS enough, the orbs get canceled. Win win. No one has to move, no one has to deal with mechanics, faster kill. And this would apply to your shrine thing. The drop in DPS caused by a shrine destroyed would be tested. If moving and dealing with that mechanic is a bigger DPS drop than the drop caused by the mechanic failing, or if reaching certain % of the boss cancels the mechanic, then the mechanic will be ignored. Your idea in fact is similar to Dhuum's greens, the difference is that if a green fails the player dies, and it's a potential wipe. I'm sure that, if a failed green did nothing more than reducing the DPS, greens would be ignored in favor of stacking and cleaving down the boss. Your shrine failing would need to be a big DPS loss if you want players to actually try to do the mechanic. My point didn't have anything to do with the encounter being designed to have a certain number of active player. Matthias does not require a specific number of players. My point was that, because of the nature of Matthias' mechanics, it's very easy to have several downed players once 1 gets downed. It's because of things like the hadouken, the tornadoes... the less people alive and capable of ressing, the more probability of needind healer roles to res, and more healers ressing means less healers actually healing those who are ressing, and that means that any damage taken won't be healed quickly, and that means a greater probability of getting downed while ressing. Do you understand what I was saying now?

That's interesting, why so, exactly? Less randomization in targeting, or less chaotic battlefield? I don't dispute that in this instance it would be the case, but is that because there are more people, or because the mechanics were designed to function that way? What I mean is, if 7 is better than 10, couldn't the developers have instead designed the mechanics to be equally as disruptive to 7 players as it currently is to 10? And by extension, couldn't they have made it as disruptive to one player as to 10? It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right? Well honestly, I don't get why Yann said that. I have never seen anyone say anything similar and I have never considered 40% Matt to be easier with less people. Mechanics in Matthias are punishing, getting downed is fairly easy if you don't pay enough attention and the thing is that it's very easy having a downed snowball effect when 1 player gets downed. Having 7 people could make things easier for healers, since they have less people to take care of. But at the same time, getting several players downed is far more dangerous when you're less people. It makes you closer to a wipe. It's true tho what you ask, Ohoni: less randomization of bomb/poison/corruption targets and more space to move. But that does not mean Matt should have been made for less people. In my opinion, this is part of the challenge: learning to position yourself and coordinate with your group so that there's space for everyone and every mechanic. Anet couldn't have made it differently, I mean, it's inevitable that the less people you have, the more often that people will be the target of any mechanic. And about the last question... I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to make raid bosses solo content without changing their most basic characteristics. No solo player can do all Matthias mechanics. It would be impossible. To start with something, the sacrifice mechanic would need to be removed (1 player is sacrificed unless the other players break his cc bar). That is impossible to be soloable without a big change (Matthias gets a cc bar and if you don't break it, he kills you). But then again, a player can't have enough cc to break Matt's bar without the need to equip certain weapons or skill that would potentially prevent him from taking other necessary things, like a skill to deal with Matt's projectiles (feedback/wall of reflection/whatever). Etc etc etc. As you can see, it's very complex and kind of a messy thing to do, and definitely more than adjusting some skills and movement patterns. It would require a complete rework.

I can imagine anet devs laughing and eating popcorn, watching us arguing endlessly and stupidly about things they do have completely decided... If they even read it still, because honestly, after so many pages and so many repetition I think they must be very bored of this topic. I doubt they actually do read this. Certainly not the 10th back and forth which has happened by now. I do believe they are keeping an eye on player activity for the game mode and are making decisions based on their sets of data. In the grand scheme of things though, raids are made by a small team (which are doing an amazing job for their supposed size) and in the day to day and overall game design raids probably don't take up a very significant chunk of time. Not like say living world episodes or a possible next expansion. Which will likely have the major chunk of work dedicated to them. Besides the artists and designers working on monetization skins for the Black Lion Store because money needs to come in from some where even if some people believe that their paltry couple of euros/dollers a few years back have provided the developers with huge bags of cash.I hope so. Whether they add an easy mode or not, I expect that decision to be made based on the actual numbers and the actual state of raids, not on some people's cries on a forum. They know much better than all of us, this thread is just nonsense from head to toe. We can't provide proof on anything, we can't "negotiate" like we are able to get a change in the game and the poll of this thread does not mean anything from neither side of the discussion. So... ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I do not expect raids team to be bigger, and I'm okay with a raid every 6 months more or less. I don't want raids to become the new fractals where you pick some and do them like they're nothing. The first time I've become bored while raiding was two days ago, when I had already done almost 2 fullclears, and I felt the need to have some more bosses : / I completely understand, and I agree, that the big chunk of resources must be given to open world/living world. I'm happy with my small raid team releasing content when they can, the only thing I'd like to have is a raid balance team that understands how classes are used in raids and what is needed to balance them.

I can imagine anet devs laughing and eating popcorn, watching us arguing endlessly and stupidly about things they do have completely decided... If they even read it still, because honestly, after so many pages and so many repetition I think they must be very bored of this topic.

Yes, exactly! The players who enjoy that 95% of the game would also enjoy raids that feel the same way, and the devs adding that option to the game would make them much happier. Glad you're finally coming around. Oh, Ohoni. Most of us, even if we think an easy mode is not necessary, have not completely opposed to it. However, the real problem is that you want an easy mode PLUS normal mode rewards. You do not just want the experience and the casual alternative. The rewards are part of the experience. It's not an alternative if it doesbn't include the rewards. As I've noted repeatedly, I would be fine with having less quantity of reward for easy mode, so that normal mode will remain faster and more efficient, I just see no reason whatsoever why easy mode should not have a reasonable path toward those rewards. It's such a weird thing to get hung up on. Yes, exactly! The players who enjoy that 95% of the game would also enjoy raids that feel the same way, and the devs adding that option to the game would make them much happier. Glad you're finally coming around. Partly quoting and effectively changing the meaning of a passage is a big no no, you should know better. It was just so much more optimistic. The second part made me sad. Such hate. How is it hate when I was merely stating facts? Even in this very response you are all about the rewards. I end up talking a lot about the rewards because the rewards are what most people push back against. I mean, if people are saying "NO ENVOY NO ENVOY NO ENVOY," then obviously my response would be, ". . . yes, Envoy, grow up." It is one of the things that I definitely care about, but it is not the only thing that I care about here, and I've said as much numerous times. But that would make it impossible to earn for players who never intend to play normal mode. Normal mode is not for every player, and should not be considered as such. If this is a sticking point, if the "normal mode raids must remain a necessary part of the process, then we'll have to move away from discussions of having an "easy mode," and focus more on how we would need to nerf normal mode to make it equivalent* to an easy mode. Why not? Yes, exactly! The players who enjoy that 95% of the game would also enjoy raids that feel the same way, and the devs adding that option to the game would make them much happier. Glad you're finally coming around. Oh, Ohoni. Most of us, even if we think an easy mode is not necessary, have not completely opposed to it. However, the real problem is that you want an easy mode PLUS normal mode rewards. You do not just want the experience and the casual alternative. The rewards are part of the experience. It's not an alternative if it doesbn't include the rewards. As I've noted repeatedly, I would be fine with having less quantity of reward for easy mode, so that normal mode will remain faster and more efficient, I just see no reason whatsoever why easy mode should not have a reasonable path toward those rewards. It's such a weird thing to get hung up on. Yes, exactly! The players who enjoy that 95% of the game would also enjoy raids that feel the same way, and the devs adding that option to the game would make them much happier. Glad you're finally coming around. Partly quoting and effectively changing the meaning of a passage is a big no no, you should know better. It was just so much more optimistic. The second part made me sad. Such hate. So what happened to your taunting? "Bring it." I seem to recall you said? You didn't bring anything. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Ah i see you still don't understand how burden of proof works. But I do know how a non-sequitur works, so I see what you did there. I would've hoped you'd have learned by now that flailing in the dark accusing people of random logical fallacies you don't actually know isn't a good idea. I suppose I was wrong Again with the non-sequiturs. Maybe read what people say and actually respond to it? If their solution had actually worked out, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. It worked for some people, but they still have a way to go for everyone else. Ok, so how about this then, in the spirit of what you just said. Put Perfected Envoy Armor in easy mode, but given normal mode exclusive access to Expirimental Envoy Armor. That way, they get something exclusive, but not "better." Yeah, no. Opponents do change when they have to. So long as they're winning, they'll do mostly the same. Just like a raid boss. So the same approach works equally well. Could you imagine a Vale Guardian that decided "you know, constantly going after the guy with the most Toughness makes me a chump, I'm just going to go after whoever I like." And also, when he splits, instead of hanging out in his corners, all three copies just rush to the middle (but just far enough apart that most AoEs can't multi-target them). Your goal is completely illogic and it shows how selfish you are. You don't care if easy mode rewards don't have any logical structure or even follow the structure of other game modes, you just want easy! Mode! Perfected! Envoy! Nothing! Else! Maybe you're the one who has to grow up. Pd. About the last quote where you say that about VG. Do you know Slothasor?