Originally posted by Lucrecia

Yeah...definetly forgot a reason there

-You have raided since EverQuest and through World of Warcraft and you simply are burnt out from the raiding experience.

THIS ^^^^^^.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Sojhin
This thread reveals what I believe many GW2 fans share as an ideal--they believe that gear seperation is just not fair--unfortunately the concept of raiding is thrown under the bus. Raiding in several of the mainstream pve mmos can provide a exciting risk vs reward system while not IMHO as exciting as a Shadowbane like no holds bars pvp it still allows the sense of tangible hard earned rewards.

 

Is there something wrong with games creating some content (not the majority of content but some) that allows the top 5 percent of people to enjoy while the 95 percent will unlikely experience? 

 

---

Yes there is something wrong with a game like GW2 creating some content that allows the "top 5 percent" of people to enjoy while the 95 percent will unlikely experience.

1) It's expensive to produce, and if only 5% of your population enjoys it, you've wasted money as a developer.
2) The point of GW2 is to encourage participation from everyone. The point of raids is to divide the population into those who raid and those who do not. The attitude of the people who do raid and post on forums doesn't help this. For instance, calling themselves the "top 5 percent".

 

The reason why I use terms such as "top 5 percent" is that that seems a true statement from my life experiences (job, travel, sports, games,dating, etc) to clearly exist. GW2 seems to already have some elements to support the top 5 percent players (esports, ?) yet that is hardly attacked by loyalist fans. On the other end of the playerbase there are people asking for the devs to design some DE's that cannot be zerged, designing some pvp content (outside esport) that has more risk vs reward and now these requests or prefered playstyles are attacked.

Originally posted by angzt

Originally posted by Masa1
Clever OP, used a bait and got 22 pages full of raging fanboys. Just shows how pathetic GW2 community is.

nice try, maybe you should have checked some posts tho before making that statement... but again: valid try :)

Was that guy even reading the same thread as the rest of us?

Instanced raiding is easy mode for devs. Making the game world live, that takes effort.

Originally posted by Sojhin 

 

The reason why I use terms such as "top 5 percent" is that that seems a true statement from my life experiences (job, travel, sports, games,dating, etc) to clearly exist. GW2 seems to already have some elements to support the top 5 percent players (esports, ?) yet that is hardly attacked by loyalist fans. On the other end of the playerbase there are people asking for the devs to design some DE's that cannot be zerged, designing some pvp content (outside esport) that has more risk vs reward and now these requests or prefered playstyles are attacked.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with this point. The problem is that we haven't seen any content past level 35, so we have no idea what happens in higher-level zones, including Orr. I would suggest that because of scaling, no DEs can be "zerged" per se. I WvW can be "zergy" but events add mobs, increase their power, or even add additional abilities to bosses depending on the number of participants.

Developers have talked about higher-stakes DEs in later zones. We know they progressively reduce the amount of renown hearts and there are none in Orr. We have been told that Orr will require a multi-pronged "attack" (presumably from land, sea and air) in order to access the dungeon there.

From personal experience, in BWE2 I was running around the 25-35 level zone, and I was helping an army invade a centaur camp through a multi-pronged DE. It felt consequential.

I guess that I'm saying that we don't know really much at all about what is in store, but we can hope (and to some extent guess based on the little we do know) that the game gets harder as we go, with more significant consequences for failure, and more of a need for coordinated efforts between players, and maybe even entire guilds, in order to complete events.

So I have seen people saying that they do not want to support a typical raid format for progression, but not that they wish the entire game to be ez-mode.

I think the main argument isn't whether or not GW2 has raids, its whether or not it fits the definition of what Raids is to the individual.

For example: many would consider Raids contents that can be completed by an Unorganized Raid group not as an Actual Raid Content.

So in short, Raid Content = Organized Raid Group only

But for alot of people Raid Content isn't for Organized Raid Group only anymore, thats where GW2 comes in, you can either have an ORganized Raid group or not, the content is there for you. Either in DE or in WvWvW, you can tag along for the ride or you can just do what you want. There is no commitment to stay with the raid or risk losing your spot.

But organization is still available, and its more in use by the Guilds, guilds that always had organized Raid groups, they would always have tactical positions, strategies and plans. While the Unorganized players just wonder around getting killed or get into smaller groups and take over other positions.

That to me is way way more fun, having organized and unorganized groups working together, or against each other. Its way more chaotic and fun in my opinion and more in line of what a raid is to me.

What I am really saying is that you can organize a raid group for Dynamic Events and WvWvW but you don't have to.

Originally posted by Sojhin

The reason why I use terms such as "top 5 percent" is that that seems a true statement from my life experiences (job, travel, sports, games,dating, etc) to clearly exist. GW2 seems to already have some elements to support the top 5 percent players (esports, ?) yet that is hardly attacked by loyalist fans. On the other end of the playerbase there are people asking for the devs to design some DE's that cannot be zerged, designing some pvp content (outside esport) that has more risk vs reward and now these requests or prefered playstyles are attacked.

First, we're talking about a game here. Everyone should have equal access and no one should be excluded.

The esport portion of GW2 takes place in the same zones as regular sPvP activities. Meaning that even if you cannot participate in esports because of lack of skill or time or want, you can still jump in and enjoy the same content.

Instanced raids, by their very nature, are about keeping content exclusive to the small percentage of the community. So no, it's not the same as esports.

Originally posted by Petzen
I actually don't think it is the act of raiding in itself that people dislike, but the fact that in most MMOs raiding equals gear grinding which certainly is an ascpect a lot of players loathe.

+1 This is the reason I dislike raiding, we all spend lots of time working out how a puzzle works and everyone has to be part of this puzzle for it to work, well most anyway. However the down side to this is that only a very few benefit from the end result when it comes to drops and that has always left me empty and been the decision I have stopped raiding and it's highly unlikely that I will ever return for those reasons.

I'm sure if someone looked at the raid concept and developed it further so that everyone could benefit from it then I might be tempted back, but I doubt that will ever happen because most of the games which have raid content demand that you grind their content and they need everyone to spend more time in their world rather than another companies world. So they cannot allow us all to get drops from their game as it cost them money in the long run.

This is another reason why players buy game money from gold farmers as they don't get high end drops and if someone has the money to buy this item then why wouldn't they. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that everyone who raids and fails use gold sellers but most of the people I have spoken to in game have turned out to be like this and have even paid to go on raids to get items.

I'm looking forward to playing the end game in GW2 to see how they manage to keep us all hooked moving forward and I'm sure if they fail then many will just uni-stall it like we have with other games knowing that there is no monthly fee makes it highly unlikely though IMO.

Bandit

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Aerowyn
Still curious as to why so many still think gw2 has no raids

Because DEs designed for up to 100 people are NOT what people mean when they talk about raids.  Changing the definition people are using to mean something else is a cute trick, but doesn't really change the fact that GW2 doesn't have raids in any traditional sense.

It does have PvE content that your entire guild can do together, but raiding isn't just large-scale PvE content anymore than standard DEs are dungeons.

 

Heck man, in a thread YOU MADE that's stickied, you have a link to how there's no raiding.

So a traditional raid = WoW raid?

I thought raids started in EQ?

1. MMO standards are dominated by WoW now.  They have been almost since WoW came out.  You see MMOs copying WoW, not EQ.  EQ hasn't mattered in 8+ years.

2. AFAIK, EQ still had all the scheduling, gear progression, and tight demands on what sort of classes you play with that made people dislike like raiding, despite having bosses outside of instances.  Honestly, overworld bosses combined with PvP and trying to snag the boss made raiding in EQ a lot worse if anything.

Doesn't WoW have open world raids though? I mean, I get what you're saying but it still doesn't change the fact that raids do not necessarily have to be instanced. Even if you look at the wikipedia page about raids, it states that raids can be instanced or open world.

I think it's the case of people having the wrong definition of the activity. In truth, GW2's DEs, especially those involving big zone bosses, fit the description of a raid to a T.

I understand what you are saying, but its kind of like using an uncommon definition of a word.  It's like say someone really hungry who is scarfing down food is in a rage.  Technically it applies, but if we've been talking about being angry, that's not really what we're getting at.

So yeah, GW2 does have open world raid bosses in a sense.  But if you go back to that wikipedia article, you'll see that pretty much everything it lists as "often" the case with raiding is not in GW2.  There's not the immense specialization in classes.  There's not raid loot in a traditional sense.  The part on raiding guilds is very likely to be laughable.  It won't require a investment of hours.  Etc, etc.

So while such bosses might fit A definition of raiding, they certainly don't fit the definition that is in common use.  I wouldn't say they fit the description of a raid to a "T" either, given how many elements of that wiki article fail to show up.  So in the significant sense of "what most people mean when they talk about raiding" GW2 does not have raiding.

Originally posted by Sojhin

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Sojhin
This thread reveals what I believe many GW2 fans share as an ideal--they believe that gear seperation is just not fair--unfortunately the concept of raiding is thrown under the bus. Raiding in several of the mainstream pve mmos can provide a exciting risk vs reward system while not IMHO as exciting as a Shadowbane like no holds bars pvp it still allows the sense of tangible hard earned rewards.

 

Is there something wrong with games creating some content (not the majority of content but some) that allows the top 5 percent of people to enjoy while the 95 percent will unlikely experience? 

 

---

Yes there is something wrong with a game like GW2 creating some content that allows the "top 5 percent" of people to enjoy while the 95 percent will unlikely experience.

1) It's expensive to produce, and if only 5% of your population enjoys it, you've wasted money as a developer.
2) The point of GW2 is to encourage participation from everyone. The point of raids is to divide the population into those who raid and those who do not. The attitude of the people who do raid and post on forums doesn't help this. For instance, calling themselves the "top 5 percent".

 

 

The reason why I use terms such as "top 5 percent" is that that seems a true statement from my life experiences (job, travel, sports, games,dating, etc) to clearly exist. GW2 seems to already have some elements to support the top 5 percent players (esports, ?) yet that is hardly attacked by loyalist fans. On the other end of the playerbase there are people asking for the devs to design some DE's that cannot be zerged, designing some pvp content (outside esport) that has more risk vs reward and now these requests or prefered playstyles are attacked.

Because raiding takes up a lot more than 5% of the development resources?  Making arenas for people in teams to PvP against each other doesn't eat up disproportionately massive amounts of dev time.

And from what they've said, there should be some DEs that can't be zerged.  They've certainly said some of them will be more difficult than others and are comfortable having some tough DEs that people will have trouble beating.

And I don't see what's so problematic about the WvWvW PvP.  It looks like playing it will be a lot of fun, and while playing it you'll have plenty of risk vs. reward.  Who cares what the benefits are if you win?  Imho, if you need a carrot to enjoy it, then there's something wrong with the game.  That said, there are certainly PvP rewards in terms of aesthetics and the like in addition to the WvWvW buff.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Aerowyn
Still curious as to why so many still think gw2 has no raids

Because DEs designed for up to 100 people are NOT what people mean when they talk about raids.  Changing the definition people are using to mean something else is a cute trick, but doesn't really change the fact that GW2 doesn't have raids in any traditional sense.

It does have PvE content that your entire guild can do together, but raiding isn't just large-scale PvE content anymore than standard DEs are dungeons.

 

Heck man, in a thread YOU MADE that's stickied, you have a link to how there's no raiding.

So a traditional raid = WoW raid?

I thought raids started in EQ?

1. MMO standards are dominated by WoW now.  They have been almost since WoW came out.  You see MMOs copying WoW, not EQ.  EQ hasn't mattered in 8+ years.

2. AFAIK, EQ still had all the scheduling, gear progression, and tight demands on what sort of classes you play with that made people dislike like raiding, despite having bosses outside of instances.  Honestly, overworld bosses combined with PvP and trying to snag the boss made raiding in EQ a lot worse if anything.

Doesn't WoW have open world raids though? I mean, I get what you're saying but it still doesn't change the fact that raids do not necessarily have to be instanced. Even if you look at the wikipedia page about raids, it states that raids can be instanced or open world.

I think it's the case of people having the wrong definition of the activity. In truth, GW2's DEs, especially those involving big zone bosses, fit the description of a raid to a T.

I understand what you are saying, but its kind of like using an uncommon definition of a word.  It's like say someone really hungry who is scarfing down food is in a rage.  Technically it applies, but if we've been talking about being angry, that's not really what we're getting at.

So yeah, GW2 does have open world raid bosses in a sense.  But if you go back to that wikipedia article, you'll see that pretty much everything it lists as "often" the case with raiding is not in GW2.  There's not the immense specialization in classes.  There's not raid loot in a traditional sense.  The part on raiding guilds is very likely to be laughable.  It won't require a investment of hours.  Etc, etc.

So while such bosses might fit A definition of raiding, they certainly don't fit the definition that is in common use.  I wouldn't say they fit the description of a raid to a "T" either, given how many elements of that wiki article fail to show up.  So in the significant sense of "what most people mean when they talk about raiding" GW2 does not have raiding.

You guys have been having a semantics battle for a while. I think you guys just need to make a distinction every time you use the term so that people can understand what you're pointing at. Maybe something like:

Open World Raids

Instanced Raids

You can even add unorganized and organized. But really, if you are just going to use the word "raid," then it does apply to GW2, EQ, WoW and wahtever the hell else has a large group of players fighting something. As long as you are clear to the type of raiding you are trying to discuss, I don't see why there is a problem with using the term to define what GW2 has.

I for one am glad GW2 has no raiding and like I said in a post on here couple weeks ago...if

GW2 isn't for everyone and if it isn't then DON't get it, it just isn't for you...and probably never will be.

Originally posted by Clywd
EQ did not have the restriction to an exact "best" setup of classes. You just brought 50+ people who knew their character. The limitation to a given set of classes came with wow and their restricton to 20(?) players in a raid.

As i hate instances by definition i of course prefer open world raids. Developers dislike this, as it would require more content - so they found an infinite amount of excuses why less content, but copied content, is really good for the dumb players.

As stated above, copying wow is a safe way to burn a lot of money, but i am still waiting for a new EQ, you know, a game for adults with social skills ;-)

Yes, because camping an area 24/7 waiting for a respawn is exactly what adults with social skills should be doing with their time.  Especially when they need to have 50 people (who DO need to be the right overall composition, so they can't just be any old group of 50 people, but 50 people with the right number of healers, buffers, debuffers, tanks, and dps) on their speed dial to join in when the respawn happens.  Oh, and there's a chance some other group will get the spawn before you.

Frankly, not a lot of people are interested in that.  People talk about WoW raiding being a timesink, but EQ was far worse in this regard.  And no, this doesn't require more content.  It requires the same or less.  It's just that you'll get even fewer people interested in it than are interested in what is now more traditional raiding (and even that doesn't have a ton of people).

If you don't mean having all those annoying bits, then how is that different from large-scale DEs in GW2?

Originally posted by colddog04

You guys have been having a semantics battle for a while. I think you guys just need to make a distinction every time you use the term so that people can understand what you're pointing at. Maybe something like:

 

Open World Raids

Instanced Raids

 

You can even add unorganized and organized. But really, if you are just going to use the word "raid," then it does apply to GW2, EQ, WoW and wahtever the hell else has a large group of players fighting something. As long as you are clear to the type of raiding you are trying to discuss, I don't see why there is a problem with using the term to define what GW2 has.

I wouldn't call it a "battle", more of a discussion.  : )

And it was just a few posts.

That said, when people talk about "raiding" without any qualifiers the vast majority mean WoW-style raiding (which is instanced raiding, but all instanced raiding need not be WoW-style raiding).  They don't mean just anything you can slap the word "raid" on like PvP or open world stuff.  It's important to understand that to see where the vast majority of people are coming from when talking about this.  Yeah, it's people not using a precise term when one is available, but that's how these things go.  Given the level of precision required, I can understand why people don't call this "instanced, progression raiding" and instead just refer to it as "raiding."

But yes, GW2 does have raiding in a sense that most people don't mean when they use the term but is still technically valid.  Just saying "GW2 has raiding" is quite misleading/confusing to many for obvious reasons.  So let's be clear, GW2 has non-HT, non-instanced/open world, non-progression raiding that doesn't require the formation of specific raid groups and compositions to beat.  Quite possibly some of the harder ones will require higher levels of organization than others, however.

Or we could say GW2 doesn't have raiding but does have large scale PvE and everyone will understand what we mean.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by colddog04

You guys have been having a semantics battle for a while. I think you guys just need to make a distinction every time you use the term so that people can understand what you're pointing at. Maybe something like:

 

Open World Raids

Instanced Raids

 

You can even add unorganized and organized. But really, if you are just going to use the word "raid," then it does apply to GW2, EQ, WoW and wahtever the hell else has a large group of players fighting something. As long as you are clear to the type of raiding you are trying to discuss, I don't see why there is a problem with using the term to define what GW2 has.

I wouldn't call it a "battle", more of a discussion.  : )

And it was just a few posts.

 

That said, when people talk about "raiding" without any qualifiers the vast majority mean WoW-style raiding (which is instanced raiding, but all instanced raiding need not be WoW-style raiding).  They don't mean just anything you can slap the word "raid" on like PvP or open world stuff.  It's important to understand that to see where the vast majority of people are coming from when talking about this.  Yeah, it's people not using a precise term when one is available, but that's how these things go.  Given the level of precision required, I can understand why people don't call this "instanced, progression raiding" and instead just refer to it as "raiding."

But yes, GW2 does have raiding in a sense that most people don't mean when they use the term but is still technically valid.  Just saying "GW2 has raiding" is quite misleading/confusing to many for obvious reasons.  So let's be clear, GW2 has non-HT, non-instanced/open world, non-progression raiding that doesn't require the formation of specific raid groups and compositions to beat.  Quite possibly some of the harder ones will require higher levels of organization than others, however.

Or we could say GW2 doesn't have raiding but does have large scale PvE and everyone will understand what we mean.

Adding more semantics to the discussion isn't really needed. If you use your description you might as well describe WoW raiding as HT, instanced/non-open world, progression raiding that requires a specific raid group composition to beat. That would be ridiculous.

Open World Raiding and Instanced Raiding usually get the message across. Perhaps there are very few people that don't get it right away, but I think the vast majority pretty much "get it."

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by colddog04

You guys have been having a semantics battle for a while. I think you guys just need to make a distinction every time you use the term so that people can understand what you're pointing at. Maybe something like:

 

Open World Raids

Instanced Raids

 

You can even add unorganized and organized. But really, if you are just going to use the word "raid," then it does apply to GW2, EQ, WoW and wahtever the hell else has a large group of players fighting something. As long as you are clear to the type of raiding you are trying to discuss, I don't see why there is a problem with using the term to define what GW2 has.

I wouldn't call it a "battle", more of a discussion.  : )

And it was just a few posts.

 

That said, when people talk about "raiding" without any qualifiers the vast majority mean WoW-style raiding (which is instanced raiding, but all instanced raiding need not be WoW-style raiding).  They don't mean just anything you can slap the word "raid" on like PvP or open world stuff.  It's important to understand that to see where the vast majority of people are coming from when talking about this.  Yeah, it's people not using a precise term when one is available, but that's how these things go.  Given the level of precision required, I can understand why people don't call this "instanced, progression raiding" and instead just refer to it as "raiding."

But yes, GW2 does have raiding in a sense that most people don't mean when they use the term but is still technically valid.  Just saying "GW2 has raiding" is quite misleading/confusing to many for obvious reasons.  So let's be clear, GW2 has non-HT, non-instanced/open world, non-progression raiding that doesn't require the formation of specific raid groups and compositions to beat.  Quite possibly some of the harder ones will require higher levels of organization than others, however.

Or we could say GW2 doesn't have raiding but does have large scale PvE and everyone will understand what we mean.

 agreed:

GW2 has raiding in the form described above.

WOW has raiding with tiered gear stat based progression.

And Other.

If a WOW player declares that their form of raiding is the only viable form they are a fool, and equally with GW2 player.  So, who is going to be the first fool to folllow this post, my bet is between 3 and 5 posts :P

What do you mean "I'm in no way bashing"?

Okay, maybe you are not. Maybe you are just trying to put your beautiful worldview on anyone elses. Way to go military guy.

Originally posted by colddog04

Adding more semantics to the discussion isn't really needed. If you use your description you might as well describe WoW raiding as HT, instanced/non-open world, progression raiding that requires a specific raid group composition to beat. That would be ridiculous.

 

Open World Raiding and Insteanced Raiding ususally get the message accross. Perhaps there are very few people that don't get it right away, but I think the vast majority pretty much "get it."

I don't need to define what sort of raiding WoW has because basically everyone already knows it.  They know it so well that when they use the term "raiding" by itself with no qualifiers, they mean WoW-style raiding.

And we can tell just looking at this thread that, no, most people wouldn't understand from "open world raiding."  EQ had that and it had a lot more in common with WoW than GW2 in terms of raiding.  Heck, WoW had some open-world raid bosses for a time, and I suppose it still has a handful.  But like EQ, fighting this isn't at all like fighting a big DE in GW2.

In short, open world raiding is at best quite vague and at worst it is quite misleading.  Certainly there isn't some clear indication about what is meant when you say GW2 has open world raiding.  Large scale PvE honestly is clearer because it doesn't have all the raiding baggage.  You can get around that baggage, sure, but you do need extra descriptors to clarify what you are talking about.

In time, depending on how large scale PvE events in GW2 are referred to, this might change.  But right now that's how it is.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by colddog04

Adding more semantics to the discussion isn't really needed. If you use your description you might as well describe WoW raiding as HT, instanced/non-open world, progression raiding that requires a specific raid group composition to beat. That would be ridiculous.

 

Open World Raiding and Insteanced Raiding ususally get the message accross. Perhaps there are very few people that don't get it right away, but I think the vast majority pretty much "get it."

I don't need to define what sort of raiding WoW has because basically everyone already knows it.  They know it so well that when they use the term "raiding" by itself with no qualifiers, they mean WoW-style raiding.

And we can tell just looking at this thread that, no, most people wouldn't understand from "open world raiding."  EQ had that and it had a lot more in common with WoW than GW2 in terms of raiding.  Heck, WoW had some open-world raid bosses for a time, and I suppose it still has a handful.  But like EQ, fighting this isn't at all like fighting a big DE in GW2.

In short, open world raiding is at best quite vague and at worst it is quite misleading.  Certainly there isn't some clear indication about what is meant when you say GW2 has open world raiding.  Large scale PvE honestly is clearer because it doesn't have all the raiding baggage.  You can get around that baggage, sure, but you do need extra descriptors to clarify what you are talking about.

In time, depending on how large scale PvE events in GW2 are referred to, this might change.  But right now that's how it is.

I think both you and colddog are correct, however where there are arguements about definitions you have to clarify with greater detail not less.  Large Scale PVE events are valid, equally large scale open world raid bosses would be the term used in WOW, if such a thing existed in WOW.  A raid could be generalised as an event requiring the coordinated effort of a group of players, but so could a 5 man instance. Etc etc, you have to be specific or the arguements are never ending.